On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision vacating the policy implementing the presidential proclamation imposing a $100,000 payment requirement before processing certain new H-1B visa petitions. The court’s ruling in State of California, et al. v. Mullin, et al. held that the payment requirement is an unconstitutional tax imposed without congressional authorization and that the agency actions implementing it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The decision reaches the opposite conclusion from the December 2025 ruling in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., in which the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the proclamation.
Background
On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation requiring employers to pay a $100,000 fee per H-1B petition for certain beneficiaries. On December 12, 2025, a coalition of 20 states filed suit in the District of Massachusetts challenging the proclamation and the agency actions implementing it. Plaintiffs argued that the payment requirement exceeded the president’s authority, intruded on Congress’s exclusive power to tax and that agency implementation violated the APA.
Court Decision
In its June 8 decision, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff states, concluding that the president lacked authority to impose the payment requirement and that the agencies’ implementation of it was unlawful. The court first determined that the $100,000 requirement functioned as a tax rather than a fee or penalty, explaining that it is not “punishment for an unlawful act or omission” because hiring H-1B workers remains lawful. The court rejected the government’s argument that the requirement could not be a tax because total H-1B revenue had declined, reasoning that “[p]urpose and effect are different” and that “every $100,000 payment made pursuant to the Policy does raise revenue.”
Turning to whether Congress had authorized such a tax, the court explained that while Congress may delegate its taxing power, it must “clearly” indicate “its intention to delegate.” Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s authorization to impose “restrictions,” “rules,” “regulations,” “orders,” “limitations,” and “exceptions” on the entry of noncitizens does not encompass the power to tax, stating plainly that “Taxes are not ‘restrictions.'” The court found that the government’s interpretation offered “no perceivable limits.”
With respect to the Administrative Procedure Act claims, the court held that because the president lacked authority to levy the tax, the implementing actions were reviewable agency action rather than unreviewable presidential action. The court concluded that the policy was a legislative rule issued without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking, exceeded the agencies’ statutory authority, and was arbitrary and capricious. On the last point, the court found that the policy documents offered no “reasoned explanation” for the change and that the agencies failed to consider reliance interests or alternatives such as “exempting the payment requirement for cap-exempt employers.”
Looking Ahead
The court vacated the policy in its entirety rather than limiting relief to the plaintiff states, though the decision remains subject to appeal to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the government may seek a stay of the ruling pending appeal. This decision and the December 2025 ruling upholding the proclamation in Chamber of Commerce reach opposite conclusions, which may set the stage for further appellate review. A separate challenge filed by Global Nurse Force and a coalition including labor unions and other organizations also remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for appeals activity, additional federal guidance and further legal developments related to the proclamation.