A federal district court in Massachusetts has vacated the government policy implementing President Trump’s September 19, 2025 proclamation that required a $100,000 supplemental payment for certain H1B petitions. The ruling found the policy unlawful and removed the agency-implemented basis for the payment requirement, though further appellate activity may still follow.
Court Ruling
On June 8, 2026, a federal district court in Massachusetts ruled in State of California et al. v. Mullin et al. that the government’s policy implementing the $100,000 H1B payment requirement was unlawful.
Judge Leo T. Sorokin:
- Granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment
- Denied the government’s cross-motion
- Denied most of the motion to dismiss
- Vacated the policy in its entirety
Background on the $100,000 H1B Requirement
On September 19, 2025, President Trump signed Proclamation 10973, which announced a $100,000 supplemental payment requirement for employers filing certain new H1B petitions.
The proclamation cited concerns that the H1B program had been used to suppress wages and displace U.S. workers, particularly in STEM fields.
Agencies then moved to implement the proclamation through:
- Memoranda
- FAQs
- Webpage guidance
- Updated fee schedule
- Payment portal
Those agency actions collectively became the policy challenged in court.
Why the Court Found the Policy Unlawful
The court concluded that the $100,000 payment requirement was, in substance, a tax.
It held that Congress had not delegated authority to the President to impose such a tax through INA sections 212(f) or 215(a).
The court also found that the agency materials implementing the requirement were legislative rules adopted without Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment rulemaking.
The court further held that the implementing materials:
- Exceeded statutory authority
- Were arbitrary and capricious
- Were adopted without required APA procedure
Impact on Employers
For employers, the ruling removes the court-reviewed basis for the $100,000 payment requirement as implemented by the agencies.
The decision is particularly important for employers that rely on H1B workers, including:
- Universities
- Nonprofit research organizations
- Healthcare systems
Caveat
The policy has been vacated by the district court, but appellate activity may still follow.
Source article: www.murthy.com
