On July 24, 2026, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to revive the $100,000 payment requirement for certain new H-1B visa petitions while the government appeals a lower court decision that struck it down. The ruling means the Trump administration cannot enforce the $100,000 H-1B visa fee while the appeals court proceeds and considers the merits of the case.
Background
On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation requiring that a $100,000 payment accompany each H-1B petition for certain beneficiaries. A coalition of 20 states challenged the proclamation and the agency actions implementing it, arguing that the payment requirement exceeded the president’s authority, intruded on Congress’s exclusive power to tax, and that agency implementation violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the policy in its entirety, holding that the payment requirement is an unconstitutional tax imposed without congressional authorization and that the agency actions implementing it violated the APA. The government moved to stay that decision pending appeal. On June 12, the district court administratively paused the order to allow the government to seek emergency relief from the appeals court. That pause left the proclamation in effect while the government’s stay request was pending before the Court of Appeals.
Court Decision
The 1st Circuit found that the government had not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal. The court concluded that the government was unlikely to prevail on the states’ claim that the policy exceeded statutory authority under the APA, reasoning that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not clearly authorize the payment requirement, and found the government unlikely to succeed on its argument that the policy was not reviewable agency action. Because the government fell short on the likelihood-of-success factor and its arguments on the remaining factors presented at most a mixed picture, the 1st Circuit denied the motion to stay the lower court’s decision to vacate the policy while the appeals process proceeds.
Looking Ahead
With the stay denied, the district court’s June 8 order vacating the policy is set to take effect, and the appeal of that ruling remains pending before the 1st Circuit. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for appeals activity, additional federal guidance and further legal developments related to the proclamation.