June 11, 2026
On the heels of the decision in Dorcas v. USCIS, another significant court decision came down earlier this week. In State of California et al. v. Markwayne Mullin et. all the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Administration’s $100,000 supplemental fee on certain H‑1B visa petitions is unlawful.
The challenged fee, which was implemented through a Presidential Proclamation in September 2025, required certain employers to pay an additional $100,000 for H‑1B workers applying for entry from outside the United States. The State of California and nineteen other states filed suit to halt imposition of the fee.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff states and vacated the fee requirement in its entirety.
Because the court set aside the policy itself, the ruling may have nationwide implications, rather than being limited to the states that brought the lawsuit. However, at the time of publication, the government’s has indicated that it intends to appeal this decision.
Notably, the court focused on the constitutional and statutory limits of executive authority, emphasizing that the challenged fee functioned not as a permissible regulatory fee, but as an unlawful tax imposed without congressional authorization.
Key Findings
The court made several important determinations in finding that the fee is unlawful:
- Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The implementation of the $100,000 fee failed to comply with required rulemaking procedures and lacked sufficient legal justification.
- Unlawful Tax: The court concluded that the fee operated as a tax rather than a legitimate user fee, which the Executive Branch lacks authority to impose without congressional approval.
- Separation of Powers Concerns: By effectively creating a new financial barrier to H‑1B entry, the Administration exceeded its authority and encroached on Congress’s role in regulating immigration and taxation.
- Lack of Statutory Authority: The decision reinforces that immigration-related fees must be grounded in clear statutory authorization and tied to actual administrative costs or services.
What This Means for Employers and Applicants
At present, the ruling does not automatically eliminate the practical effects of the fee, particularly if an appeal or stay is sought. However, if upheld, it could have significant implications:
- Employers may no longer be required to pay the $100,000 supplemental fee for certain H‑1B petitions
- Barriers to hiring and sponsoring foreign workers particularly in critical sectors such as healthcare, education, and research may be reduced
- The decision limits the government’s ability to impose substantial new costs on visa programs without Congressional approval
- It reinforces predictability and stability in the H‑1B program, which many employers rely on for workforce planning
- It may open the door for employers who already paid the fee to seek return of the $100k
As with the recent Rhode Island decision addressing USCIS adjudication pauses, this ruling reflects continued judicial scrutiny of expansive immigration-related policies and underscores the importance of adherence to statutory limits and procedural requirements.
We will continue to monitor developments closely, including any appeal or implementation guidance issued by USCIS or the Department of Justice.
If you have questions about how this decision may affect your organization’s H‑1B strategy or pending petitions, please contact our office for guidance.