A second federal court has blocked the government from enforcing the extra $100,000 H-1B payment requirement.
On September 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam of the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction blocking the government from implementing key sections of the renewed presidential proclamation requiring certain employers to pay $100,000 when filing H-1B petitions for beneficiaries outside the United States.
This is new litigation, separate from the Massachusetts case that blocked the fee in June. For employers and workers, the immediate answer is straightforward:
The $100,000 payment cannot be collected right now. But the fee is not permanently dead, the entry restriction remains written through September 21, 2027, and a separate DHS proposal could create a much broader long-term fee.
What happened on September 30, 2026?
The California court issued a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order intended to prevent harm while a lawsuit continues.
The order blocks the federal government from implementing Sections 1, 2, and 3(a) of the renewed proclamation. Those sections formed the basis for requiring employers to make an additional $100,000 payment for certain new H-1B petitions involving workers outside the United States.
The plaintiffs included healthcare, educational, and religious organizations, along with groups representing those sectors and immigrant-rights interests. Democracy Forward was among the counsel representing the plaintiffs.
The case is separate from the lawsuit filed by 20 states in Massachusetts, where a federal judge blocked the fee in June 2026. The appeals court declined in July to pause that ruling. The California decision does not replace or end the Massachusetts litigation.
Instead, there are now two separate federal court decisions blocking enforcement of the same fee framework.
Why did the California court block the fee?
The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on important legal claims.
First, the court concluded that it could review whether the fee represented an unauthorized use of authority delegated by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Second, the court found that the agencies likely failed to follow required rulemaking procedures. In particular, the government did not complete the normal notice-and-comment process, which generally gives the public an opportunity to review and respond to a proposed rule before it takes effect.
The court also found that the government needed to complete analyses required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Those analyses examine how a proposed federal action could affect small businesses and other small organizations.
The injunction will remain in place until the Department of Homeland Security completes proper notice-and-comment rulemaking and conducts the required small-business impact analysis, unless a later court order changes the situation.
For now, the practical result is clear: USCIS and other agencies cannot collect the additional $100,000 payment under the blocked proclamation provisions.
What does this mean for employers today?
Employers filing H-1B petitions should continue to plan carefully, but they should not include the extra $100,000 payment with a filing while the injunction remains in effect.
You should still expect to pay the ordinary H-1B government fees. Depending on the type of petition, the employer, the number of employees, and whether premium processing is requested, those fees can total approximately $2,000 to $5,000 or more.
The court fight concerns only the additional $100,000 requirement. It does not eliminate:
- The regular Form I-129 filing fee
- The fraud prevention fee
- The ACWIA training fee, when applicable
- The H-1B registration fee
- Premium processing, if requested
- Other applicable government fees or employer obligations
Employers planning FY2027 filings should therefore:
- Budget for the ordinary H-1B fees.
- Do not assume the $100,000 fee will never return.
- Keep records showing the filing date, requested classification, work location, and whether the beneficiary is inside or outside the United States.
- Review whether the case requires consular processing or a change or extension of status.
- Monitor USCIS guidance and future court orders before finalizing filing packages.
- Prepare for greater scrutiny of job duties, wages, work locations, and the employer’s recent workforce history.
The administration has claimed that more than 700 petitions were accompanied by the $100,000 payment and that registrations from major information-technology outsourcing companies declined. Those are administration claims, not findings established by the California court.
What does this mean for workers with petitions in progress?
If your employer has an H-1B petition in progress, the new ruling may remove the immediate need for the additional $100,000 payment. However, the result can depend on the filing date, the type of petition, the requested notification, and the government’s implementation guidance.
You should not assume that:
- A pending case will automatically be approved.
- A payment already submitted will automatically be refunded.
- A case filed for consular processing will be treated exactly like a change-of-status case.
- The injunction permanently eliminates future fee risk.
Existing H-1B holders and beneficiaries of previously approved H-1B petitions were generally not covered by the original proclamation under USCIS guidance. The fee was directed primarily at certain new petitions involving beneficiaries outside the United States.
If you are changing employers, extending H-1B status, traveling, or waiting for visa stamping, your immigration strategy should be reviewed based on your individual history and the current agency instructions.
Is the H-1B restriction still in effect?
The restriction remains written on the books, but its fee provisions are currently blocked by the court order.
The September 18, 2026 proclamation extended the underlying framework through September 21, 2027. That means the administration continues to seek authority to restrict entry for certain H-1B workers unless the required payment is made.
For now, however, the court injunction prevents the government from enforcing the blocked sections. The government could ask the court to modify or narrow the order, appeal the decision, or attempt to adopt a new rule through the proper process.
That is why employers and workers should plan as though the legal issue remains unresolved, even though no $100,000 payment can be collected today.
Why is the proposed $103,265 fee a bigger long-term concern?
The most important long-term development may be separate from the presidential proclamation.
On August 25, 2026, DHS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would create an additional $103,265 fee for all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including petitions eligible for the advanced-degree exemption.
That proposal is different from the proclamation in several important ways:
- It is based on regulatory fee authority rather than an entry proclamation.
- It would be intended as a permanent fee.
- It would apply to cap-subject petitions whether the worker is inside or outside the United States.
- If finalized as written, it could reach certain F-1 students requesting a change of status to H-1B.
- It would be added to the ordinary H-1B fees.
- It would not apply to cap-exempt H-1B petitions, such as many petitions filed by universities and qualifying nonprofit or government research organizations.
The proposal is not currently in effect. DHS must review public comments, respond to those comments, and publish a final rule before the fee could become effective. Litigation would also be likely.
For employers, this proposed rule could be more disruptive than the proclamation because it would potentially affect the annual H-1B cap and F-1 students changing status inside the United States.
What alternatives should employers and workers consider?
H-1B remains only one possible employment-based strategy.
Depending on the facts, employers and workers may wish to explore:
- Cap-exempt H-1B employment, particularly with qualifying universities, research organizations, and affiliated entities.
- O-1 classification for individuals with extraordinary ability or significant recognition in their field.
- L-1 classification for qualifying employees transferring from a related foreign company to a U.S. office.
- EB-2 National Interest Waiver, which may allow a qualified professional to pursue permanent residence without a specific employer sponsor.
- Other employment-based green card options or temporary visa categories.
These are not automatic substitutes. Each has different requirements involving education, experience, company structure, international employment, achievements, job duties, and long-term immigration goals.
What about the September 18 executive order on layoffs?
The administration also issued a separate executive order on September 18, 2026.
That order does not impose the $100,000 fee. It directs the Departments of Labor, State, and Homeland Security to coordinate more closely and consider whether an employer has:
- Directly or indirectly conducted layoffs during the prior year; or
- Planned layoffs that negatively affect similarly situated U.S. workers.
The order also directs the Department of Labor to begin reviewing previously submitted Labor Condition Applications to determine whether further action may be warranted.
This is a separate issue from the fee litigation, but it is part of the same broader enforcement effort. Employers with recent layoffs should maintain clear records explaining job duties, wage levels, organizational structure, and why the sponsored position does not improperly replace a similarly situated U.S. worker.
What should you do next?
For now, do not pay the extra $100,000 proclamation fee unless official guidance or a court order changes the current status. Continue preparing H-1B cases using the ordinary fee schedule and allow additional time for careful compliance review.
If you are an employer, review your FY2027 hiring plans, recent layoffs, cap-exempt options, and possible alternatives before making time-sensitive decisions.
If you are a worker, do not abandon an H-1B strategy based only on headlines. Your best option may depend on whether you are inside the United States, whether your employer is cap-exempt, whether you have international employment history, and whether you qualify for an O-1, L-1, NIW, or another pathway.
We will continue to keep you updated as the California case, the Massachusetts litigation, the Chamber of Commerce appeal, and the proposed DHS fee rule develop. You can also visit the Badmus & Associates blog for additional immigration news and practical guidance.
This article provides general information, not legal advice. Immigration outcomes depend on individual facts, current agency guidance, and future court decisions. Speak with an immigration attorney before filing, traveling, changing status, or relying on a potential alternative visa category.
#H1B #ImmigrationNews #EmploymentImmigration #USImmigration #ImmigrationLaw #VisaUpdates #Employers #ForeignWorkers #FY2027 #BadmusLaw
The post A Second Federal Court Blocks the $100,000 H-1B Fee: What Employers and Workers Should Know appeared first on Badmus & Associates.