The $100,000 H-1B fee has been blocked again.
On September 30, a federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction against the government’s implementation of the fee. That came after a separate federal court in Massachusetts had already struck down the fee earlier this year.
As of October 1, 2026, the two rulings mean the government cannot currently enforce the $100,000 payment requirement nationwide.
But the fee is not necessarily gone for good.
Another federal court previously upheld the policy, and the government has continued to argue that the president had the authority to impose it. Appeals are still possible, and the administration has said it intends to collect the money if the court orders blocking the fee are eventually lifted.
So the situation is simpler than the headlines make it sound: the $100,000 fee is blocked right now, but the legal fight is still alive.
What happened in California?
On September 30, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in Global Nurse Force, et al. v. Trump.
The case challenged the way DHS implemented the H-1B fee.
The judge found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that the agencies’ implementation was arbitrary and capricious and that the government had failed to follow the notice-and-comment process required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
The ruling blocks the agency policies used by DHS, USCIS and the State Department to collect and enforce the fee.
There is an important distinction here.
The California court did not strike down the presidential proclamation itself. Instead, it blocked the agency actions used to put the proclamation into practice.
The injunction covers both the original September 19, 2025 proclamation and the September 18, 2026 extension that attempted to continue the fee through September 21, 2027.
This is the second major court loss for the fee
The California ruling follows an earlier decision from Massachusetts.
On June 8, 2026, Judge Leo Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in State of California v. Mullin that the $100,000 payment functioned as an unlawful tax that Congress had not authorized.
That court vacated the agency guidance implementing the fee.
The government appealed and asked the First Circuit Court of Appeals to put the ruling on hold.
The First Circuit rejected that request on July 24.
That left the Massachusetts decision in effect.
The California ruling now provides a second, independent reason why the government’s implementation of the fee cannot continue.
The two courts did not reach the issue in exactly the same way. Massachusetts focused heavily on whether the president had the authority to impose what the court viewed as a tax. California focused on the agencies’ implementation and the Administrative Procedure Act.
That difference could matter if the cases continue through the appeals process.
But another court upheld the fee
The legal picture is not one-sided.
On December 24, 2025, a federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled in a case brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the fee was within presidential authority.
That decision conflicts with the Massachusetts and California rulings.
So there are now competing federal court decisions over the legality of the $100,000 H-1B fee.
That makes an appeal particularly important.
The government has already made clear that it disagrees with the courts that have blocked the fee. It has also indicated that it intends to resume collection if the injunctions or vacatur are overturned.
In other words, today’s court order does not necessarily settle what happens next year.
What happens to a new H-1B filing?
Under the original proclamation, the $100,000 fee applied to certain new H-1B petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025. See also: $100,000 or $103,265? What the viral H-1B fee videos keep getting wrong.
The rule targeted beneficiaries who were outside the United States and did not have a valid H-1B visa.
It did not apply in the same way to H-1B extensions, renewals or workers who already held valid H-1B visas.
Before the latest court rulings, petitioners subject to the fee generally had to make the $100,000 payment through Pay.gov before filing the H-1B petition with USCIS. See also: The proposed $103,265 H-1B fee: what it means for workers and applicants.
Proof of payment, or evidence that an exception applied, had to accompany the filing.
The court orders have now stopped that collection process nationwide.
That means a qualifying new H-1B petition is not currently subject to the $100,000 payment requirement while the injunctions remain in effect.
The White House has said more than 700 H-1B petitions had already included the $100,000 payment before the court rulings took effect.
What about the people who already paid?
This is one area where the current court decisions do not provide a simple answer.
The rulings blocking the fee address the government’s ability to enforce and collect it. They do not establish a general refund process for payments that were already made.
For employers that already paid the $100,000 fee, the next step is likely to depend on how USCIS and the other agencies respond to the court orders.
That makes this a question for the employer’s immigration counsel rather than something that can be assumed from the injunction itself.
Does this affect H-1B workers already in the U.S.?
The $100,000 fee was never a general charge on every H-1B worker.
The original policy was aimed at certain new petitions involving beneficiaries outside the United States who did not have valid H-1B visas.
That means an existing H-1B worker filing a normal extension or amendment is not suddenly facing a $100,000 payment simply because the worker has H-1B status.
The distinction between a new petition subject to the proclamation and an extension, amendment or other existing H-1B case remains important.
The timeline so far
| Date | Court action | What happened |
|---|---|---|
| December 24, 2025 | D.D.C. | Court upheld the fee as within presidential authority |
| June 8, 2026 | D. Mass. | Court vacated agency guidance implementing the fee |
| July 24, 2026 | First Circuit | Refused to stay the Massachusetts ruling |
| September 30, 2026 | N.D. Cal. | Court issued a preliminary injunction blocking implementation |
| October 1, 2026 | Nationwide status | $100,000 collection is currently blocked |
What happens next?
The next major development is likely to come through the courts.
The government can challenge the California injunction, while the broader dispute over presidential authority and the agencies’ implementation of the fee continues.
That leaves H-1B employers and applicants in an unusual position.
The $100,000 payment is not currently required for the filings covered by the blocked policy, but there is no guarantee that the legal position will remain unchanged.
A company planning a new H-1B filing for a worker abroad therefore has two separate questions to consider.
The first is the rule today.
The second is what happens if the government wins on appeal and the fee comes back.
For employers making hiring decisions, that distinction matters because the fee could return while a petition is still being processed.
The $100,000 fee is blocked. The story isn’t over.
Two federal courts have now blocked the government’s implementation of the H-1B fee.
But another federal court has upheld it.
The government continues to defend the policy, and the administration has indicated that it intends to collect the $100,000 payment if the court orders blocking it are lifted.
So the practical situation on October 1 is clear, even if the final legal outcome is not:
The $100,000 H-1B fee is currently blocked nationwide. It has not been permanently erased. See also: “H-1Bs getting crushed”: is the $100k fee already blocked? What to actually watch.
For anyone planning a new H-1B filing involving a worker outside the United States, the filing rules should be checked again immediately before submission because the court battle can change the requirements.
Sources
- USCIS, H-1B FAQ and presidential proclamation guidance
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Global Nurse Force v. Trump
- U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, State of California v. Mullin
- First Circuit Court of Appeals
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. Chamber of Commerce case
- Fragomen, analysis of the California injunction
- Envoy Global, analysis of the California ruling
- NBC News, coverage of the court decisions
