Is the $100,000 H-1B fee gone? What employers and visa holders need to know

As things stand now, USCIS cannot collect the $100,000 payment on H-1B petitionsH-1B Visa, according to legal updates. However, the legal fight is still going on, and the rules could change again. 

No $100,000 payment required right now 

“File H-1B petitions normally,” Rahul Reddy, founding partner of Houston-based immigration firm Reddy Neumann Brown PC, said in a client note this week. He also advised employers to keep detailed records of their filing dates and receipts “in case the rules shift again.” 

The warning is clear: the current situation is merely a pause, not a final decision.

Currently, the  $100,000 fee is not being enforced because the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, on July 24, 2026, rejected the government’s request to bring the fee back while its appeal against a lower court ruling continues. 

The government’s appeal is still pending. Immigration lawyers say the case could eventually reach the US Supreme Court. 

The First Circuit’s decision confirms that the June 8 ruling by the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts remains in effect nationwide. This ruling had entirely struck down the $100,000 H-1B fee policy.

What should employers do now? 

For now, employers filing H-1B petitions should continue with the normal process. They do not need to include the $100,000 payment. However, immigration lawyers are advising employers to carefully save their filing dates, receipts and other records. This could become important if the rules change again.

Employers should also not assume that the government has permanently lost the case. The appeal is still going on, and the Supreme Court could eventually become involved. 

Is the $100,000 fee gone forever? 

No. The First Circuit has not made a final decision on whether the fee itself is legal. Its latest ruling was only about whether the lower court’s decision should be put on hold while the government’s appeal continues.

The government has not won that request, but its main appeal is still pending. This means the $100,000 fee could potentially return in the future.

The situation could change after another court ruling, a new request by the government to pause the lower court’s order, or a final decision from the First Circuit. The case could also eventually reach the Supreme Court.

How did the $100,000 H-1B fee begin?

The dispute started on September 19, 2025, when President Donald Trump signed Presidential Proclamation. The proclamation said a $100,000 payment should accompany certain H-1B petitions for workers who were outside the United States when the petitions were filed.

Twenty US states, led by California and Massachusetts, challenged the policy in court. The states argued that the Trump administration had gone beyond its legal powers and had violated the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA.

They also said the fee could make it harder for them to bring skilled foreign workers to public universities, schools and hospital systems.

On June 8, 2026, a federal district court agreed with the states.

Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that the $100,000 charge effectively worked like an unauthorised tax. He also said that neither the presidential proclamation nor the way USCIS put the policy into effect was a valid use of executive power.

The judge then cancelled the policy in its entirety. But the fee briefly returned after Judge Sorokin issued a short administrative stay of his own ruling on June 12, 2026. The temporary stay gave the government time to ask the First Circuit for emergency relief. That effort failed on July 24, when the appeals court ruled against the administration.

Why did the appeals court reject the government’s request? 

The court did not make a final ruling on whether the $100,000 fee is legal. Instead, it looked at whether the government should be allowed to keep the fee in place while its appeal continues.  To get that stay, the government had to show that it was likely to win its main appeal.

The appeals court found that the government had not done enough to show that it was likely to win. The government argued that the law gives the president the power to impose “any restriction” on entry into the country. It said that requiring a payment could be treated as another condition for entry.

The administration argued that the president has broad powers in matters involving immigration and national security. But the appeals court did not find this argument strong enough to bring the fee back while the case continues.

According to Reddy’s account of the case, government agencies argued in one part of their legal filings that their actions were too minor for courts to review. But elsewhere in the same filings, they argued that stopping those actions would cause serious harm every day.

The court noticed the contradiction and said the government had not properly explained how both arguments could be true. 

Congress has created other immigration fees through laws 

Another major issue was the way the $100,000 charge was introduced. Reddy’s firm pointed out that other immigration fees were created by Congress through laws. Those laws clearly explain the fees and, in many cases, what happens to the money collected.

The $100,000 payment was different because it was introduced through a presidential proclamation.

The government argued that this was not a normal immigration filing fee. Instead, it said the payment was linked to a national-security decision, an area where presidents have traditionally had broad powers.

No president had done this before 

The government was also relying on powers that had never previously been used to demand a payment of this kind.

In the six decades since the relevant entry provisions came into use, no president had used them to impose such a large payment.

The government did not dispute that point. However, it argued that just because a power had never been used in this way before did not mean using it for the first time was automatically illegal.

The administration said the law was written broadly and gave the president enough flexibility to take such action.

Which case is involved? 

The case is State of California, et al. v. Markwayne Mullin, et al., No. 1:25-cv-13829. It is being heard in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The bigger picture

As Reddy said in the firm’s note, major policies that are “announced overnight” can move very quickly. But they can also fall apart just as quickly when they face legal challenges in court.

In this case, 20 states, one federal judge in Massachusetts and a three-judge appeals court panel have so far been enough to stop the $100,000 H-1B fee from being collected.

But the word to remember is “for now.” The government’s appeal is still alive. Until the courts make a final decision, employers and H-1B workers cannot be certain that the $100,000 fee is gone for good.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, immigration, or tax advice. Immigration laws and government policies are subject to frequent change without notice. While we strive to provide accurate updates, readers are strongly advised to verify the latest requirements with the official embassy, consulate, or government portal of the respective country. Financial Express is not responsible for any decisions made based on this information. For personalized guidance, please consult a qualified immigration attorney or a certified professional advisor.