The $100,000 H-1B Fee Is Gone — For Now

The ruling that landed on June 8

On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a ruling that vacated the $100,000 supplemental H-1B fee in its entirety. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff states — a coalition of twenty states that had filed suit in December 2025 — and declared the policy, along with all the agency guidance DHS had issued to implement it, to be unlawful.

As of June 8, the $100,000 payment requirement has no valid legal basis. Employers petitioning for H-1B status do not owe the supplemental payment. USCIS, which had been collecting the fee on qualifying petitions since September 21, 2025, has acknowledged the court's order and stated it will comply — while simultaneously expressing strong disagreement and signaling it is considering next steps. Everyone understands that to mean an appeal is coming.

The ruling is the most significant H-1B legal development since the weighted-lottery regulations took effect in February 2026. It does not touch the lottery. It does not touch standard USCIS filing fees. It strikes down one specific policy — and that policy had become one of the sharpest cost barriers for smaller employers, universities, and nonprofits that couldn't absorb a six-figure fee per petition.

Where the $100,000 requirement came from

On September 19, 2025, President Trump signed a proclamation titled "Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers." Invoking presidential authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict entry of aliens whose admission is not in the national interest, the proclamation required that certain H-1B petitions submitted after 12:01 a.m. Eastern time on September 21, 2025 include a $100,000 supplemental payment directed to a designated government fund.

The stated rationale was protecting American workers from what the proclamation described as abuses of the H-1B program — specifically, the practice of placing workers at third-party client sites at wages near the prevailing-wage floor. The administration argued the fee would deter offshore outsourcing firms that had dominated prior lottery cycles.

In December 2025, a coalition of twenty states filed suit in the District of Massachusetts, making two arguments: first, that the president lacked statutory authority to impose the payment, because immigration law does not give the executive the power to create new financial requirements on visa petitions; and second, that the DHS guidance implementing the fee violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was issued without notice-and-comment rulemaking. On June 8, 2026, the court agreed on both counts.

The legal argument that worked

The court's ruling turned on a constitutional principle that is not complicated once you state it plainly: only Congress can impose taxes. The court found that the $100,000 payment directed to a government fund is a tax in substance, regardless of how the proclamation chose to label it. Calling it a "restriction on entry" did not change the underlying reality — it was money going to the government as a condition of receiving a government benefit.

To support this conclusion, the court relied on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which had examined similar proclamation-based authority and confirmed that the taxing power belongs to Congress, not the executive branch. The president can restrict who enters the country. He cannot invent new revenue streams for the federal government by attaching payment conditions to visa petitions.

The APA claim gave the court a second, independent basis for the ruling. Even if the executive had some authority to impose such a payment, DHS's implementing guidance was a legislative rule subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA — and DHS issued it without any such process. Two separate grounds, either of which would have been sufficient, landed simultaneously. That is why the summary judgment motion succeeded.

What vacatur actually means

Vacatur is not an injunction. An injunction tells specific parties to stop enforcing a policy against specific plaintiffs. Vacatur eliminates the legal basis of the policy itself. The court declared the $100,000 fee requirement and the DHS guidance implementing it to be without legal effect — nationally, not just for the twenty plaintiff states.

In practical terms: employers filing H-1B petitions after June 8, 2026 do not owe the supplemental payment. USCIS should not be collecting it. Petitions already in preparation should be revised to remove the supplemental payment if it was included. Whether to include a cover letter flagging the June 8 ruling is a tactical judgment for filing counsel.

One thing vacatur does not automatically do is trigger refunds. The court's order eliminates the fee going forward. It does not, on its own, create a refund obligation for the payments USCIS collected between September 21, 2025 and June 8, 2026. That question is separate and depends on guidance USCIS has not yet issued as of June 13, 2026.

The refund question nobody has answered yet

If your employer paid the $100,000 fee on an H-1B petition filed between September 21, 2025 and June 8, 2026, you are in a category where the answer is genuinely unclear. The fee was paid under a requirement that has now been declared unlawful. Whether that entitles the employer to a refund, and how to claim one, depends on administrative guidance USCIS has not published.

Immigration attorneys are tracking this closely. The practical advice right now is to retain all documentation of the supplemental fee payment — the petition receipt, the payment confirmation, and any USCIS acknowledgment — and monitor for any USCIS announcement addressing refunds. Do not expect USCIS to reach out proactively. If refund guidance is issued, acting on it promptly will matter.

Employers who paid the fee and then had the petition denied for unrelated reasons face an additional layer of complexity. The fee was collected regardless of petition outcome. Whether a refund claim on a denied petition is viable under the same rationale is a question immigration counsel will need to evaluate case by case.

The appeal that's coming

DHS has been explicit that it strongly disagrees with the district court's order. The government will almost certainly appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. When it does, it may seek a stay of the district court's ruling pending appeal — meaning a request that the First Circuit pause the lower court's order while the case proceeds.

If the First Circuit grants a stay, the $100,000 fee would effectively be back in force while the appeal is pending. A stay is not automatic. Courts weigh the likelihood of success on appeal, the relative harm to the parties, and the public interest. Given that the district court's ruling rested on two independent grounds — the constitutional taxing-power argument and the APA notice-and-comment argument — the government's path to a stay is harder than if only one ground existed. Overcoming both simultaneously at the appellate level would be more difficult.

Watch for any First Circuit motion for a stay in the coming weeks. Employers who are planning to file H-1B petitions in the near term should work with counsel on a contingency approach: file now without the supplemental payment, and have a plan for how to respond if a stay is granted and the fee suddenly has legal force again.

The weighted lottery is a separate matter

The most common piece of confusion circulating right now is conflating this ruling with the FY2027 H-1B weighted lottery. They are completely different policies.

The weighted lottery — which increases the selection probability for petitions tied to higher-wage positions, effective February 27, 2026 — is a USCIS regulatory change promulgated through notice-and-comment rulemaking. It was not created by the September 2025 proclamation. The Massachusetts court ruling does not address it, let alone strike it down. The FY2027 cap registrations went through under the weighted system, and no court has enjoined or vacated that rule.

If you are planning H-1B cap petitions for FY2028 or evaluating a transfer or extension, the weighted lottery remains the framework governing selection odds. The $100,000 fee, at least for now, is no longer part of the picture.

What to do right now

For petitions in preparation: do not include the $100,000 supplemental payment. The fee has no legal basis as of June 8. Include a reference to the June 8, 2026 district court ruling if filing counsel believes it is useful context for the USCIS receipt officer, though this is not legally required.

For petitions already filed and pending where the supplemental payment was included: hold, monitor the case status at egov.uscis.gov, and watch for any USCIS announcement on refund processing. Do not take unilateral action on a pending case without guidance from immigration counsel.

For employers who stopped filing H-1B petitions after September 21, 2025 because the $100,000 fee made sponsorship economically impossible: the vacatur changes the math. Extension petitions and cap-exempt petitions that were deferred can be revisited. New sponsorship decisions that were shelved because of the cost barrier can go back to counsel for evaluation.

For employers with employees currently on H-1B who are approaching extension deadlines: the fee removal does not affect standard filing fees or processing timelines. USCIS processing times for H-1B extensions have been running approximately three to five months at regular processing and two to three weeks at premium. Those estimates have not changed because of this ruling.

This article is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. H-1B petition strategy, refund eligibility, and response to any stay application depend on facts specific to each employer and petition. Consult a licensed immigration attorney before changing any pending or planned filing.