On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation mandating an additional payment of $100,000 for employers filing H-1B petitions on behalf of foreign nationals outside the U.S. (i.e., seeking “consular processing”), or otherwise not eligible for a change, extension, and/or amendment of existing H-1B status. The consequence of the proclamation has been a severe limitation on U.S. employers’ ability to obtain skilled workers under the H-1B program. While the proclamation did allow for exceptions to be made when in the national interest, no national interest exceptions were granted by the Trump administration.
On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the additional $100,000 H-1B visa payment constitutes a tax that Congress did not authorize, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and declared the fee unlawful. As of the date of this post, the Trump administration has not responded to the court’s decision to vacate the $100,000 fee requirement.
The June 8 decision comes just days after a decision on June 5, 2026, by the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island to vacate four U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies: the Benefits Hold Policy, Global Asylum Hold Policy, Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, and Country-Specific Factors Policy — all of which the court found unconstitutional and in violation of the APA. In short, the four USCIS policies at issue placed a hold on asylum applications and benefits requests related to so-called Travel Ban countries. As articulated in a separate client alert addressing the importance of the decision in the context of higher education, the court’s decision imposes meaningful limits on the Trump administration’s ability to change immigration law through policy memorandum, rather than the lawful administrative process.
While the two court decisions mark important victories for employers, and their foreign national workforces, who have been significantly affected by these Trump administration policies, litigation is likely to continue in both cases, and the final decision in both cases may ultimately be made by the U.S. Supreme Court.
We are monitoring these immigration developments closely, and their application will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If you have questions, please reach out to your Nixon Peabody immigration professional.