The $100,000 H-1B fee is blocked per a federal judge in California. The ruling also applies to the September 2026 proclamation that extended the fee another year. On September 30, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. in the Northern District of California struck down the agency policies that established the fee. He also barred the government from enforcing them. Two federal courts have now rejected the fee this year.
Background
Proclamation 10973, was signed by President Trump on September 19, 2025. New H-1B workers coming from abroad would not be able to enter the U.S. unless their employer paid $100,000 with the petition. One narrow exception applies to cases the government deemed in the national interest. Those already in the country on H-1B status are not affected. The administration said it worried that some employers, especially IT staffing and outsourcing firms, were using the program to bring in cheaper foreign labor to replace American workers.
The ban was supposed to last for a year. A new proclamation signed by the President on September 18, 2026, extended it through September 21, 2027. The proclamation itself said employers paid the fee on only about 700 petitions in the first year.
Courts started pushing back. In June, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled the policy behind the original proclamation was invalid nationwide and sided with a coalition of 20 states led by California.
The New Decision
The fee became the subject of the first lawsuit, filed in October 2025 by Global Nurse Force. The plaintiffs include a professors’ association, a nurse staffing company, several employers, unions, and a church and pastor.
Judge Gilliam pointed to two central problems. First, the agencies never considered alternatives to the fee or how much employers relied on the existing rules. That made the policies arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Second, he considered the policies to be legislative rules. That meant the public had to be given a chance to comment before they took effect, and nobody did. The block remains in place while the agencies complete that process.
The government also argued employers could not sue unless they first tried to get a national interest exemption. That didn’t fly with the judge. In the case, some employers had asked for an exception almost a year ago and were still waiting for a reply.
Why This Matters Outside of Tech
Reuters highlighted the employers that influenced the ruling with their stories. The court was told that nearly all the physicians at a rural kidney-care practice had come through the H-1B program. It hired a recruiter and looked for 9 months. In the end, it found only one qualified doctor willing to take the job, a physician from India who trained in the U.S. on a J-1 visa. However, the practice couldn’t afford the $100,000 fee and now has an additional 100 patients on its wait list. In another example, a K-12 school on a Sioux reservation in South Dakota reported a similar experience. Everyone who applied for the two open teaching positions needed H-1B sponsorship.
However, much of the H-1B coverage is focused on big tech companies. Rural clinics, small schools, and specialty practices also use the visa. In some of these positions, the H-1B candidate is the only qualified applicant.
What Comes Next
This is likely not the final word, as the government is expected to appeal. The ruling does not affect a separate proposed DHS rule, published in August, that would impose a $103,265 fee on new cap-subject H-1B workers.
As always, ILBSG actively monitors ongoing U.S. immigration news. If you have questions about any U.S. immigration related issue, contact us. Working with an experienced attorney ensures you get the right advice based on the most recent laws. In an ever-evolving immigration policy landscape, it’s particularly critical you get the right advice.