Second Federal Court Blocks $100,000 H-1B Fee Nationwide

What Happened

On September 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a [preliminary injunction](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/judge-halts-memos-on-100-000-h-1b-worker-fee-in-blow-to-trump-17) in Global Nurse Force v. Trump, No. 4:25-cv-08454, blocking the federal policies that put the $100,000 H-1B fee into effect. U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. ordered that the agency policies implementing the fee be vacated and remanded, and that federal agencies be enjoined from enforcing or implementing them.

The scope is notable: the order covers policies issued under both the original September 19, 2025 proclamation and the [September 2026 extension](https://haven-five-hazel.vercel.app/blog/trump-extends-h1b-fee-proclamation-2027) that carried the fee forward through September 21, 2027. Agencies are barred from enforcing either until they complete notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, along with a required Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis.

[Reuters reported](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/second-judge-blocks-trumps-100000-fee-new-h-1b-worker-visas-2026-10-01/) that the ruling prevents federal immigration agencies from enforcing the payment while the agencies comply with APA requirements — the second federal decision against the fee, after a June 2026 ruling by Judge Leo Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts in State of California v. Mullin that vacated the implementing guidance nationwide.

The plaintiffs are a coalition that includes healthcare providers, educational institutions, manufacturing companies, labor organizations, and individual workers. The case was filed in October 2025, and the court heard argument on the injunction motion as the administration extended the proclamation for a second year.

Why the Court Ruled for the Plaintiffs

The California court did not decide whether the President exceeded his authority in issuing the proclamation itself. Instead, it focused on how USCIS, CBP, and the State Department implemented the fee — and found the agencies likely violated the APA in two ways.

• No notice-and-comment: the court concluded the agencies created substantive policies implementing the fee, that those policies functioned as legislative rules, that the agencies skipped the required notice-and-comment process, and that no APA exception justified bypassing it.
• Arbitrary and capricious: the court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on the claim that the agencies failed to consider alternatives, failed to address the reliance interests of affected employers, inadequately explained the implementation framework, and did not demonstrate reasoned decision-making.
• Remedy: the implementing policies are vacated and remanded, and the agencies must complete APA rulemaking and a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis before attempting to implement the fee again. The court declined to require a bond and denied the government's request for a stay pending appeal.

Who's Affected

The injunction reaches the same population the fee targets — new H-1B petitions for beneficiaries outside the United States:

• Employers filing new H-1B petitions requiring consular processing for workers abroad — the $100,000 payment remains uncollectible, now under two independent injunctions grounded in different legal theories.
• Healthcare systems, universities, nonprofits, and manufacturers that sponsor specialized talent from overseas — the plaintiffs in this case were drawn from exactly these sectors.
• Beneficiaries born in India, who account for a large share of the H-1B program — USCIS data show roughly 71 percent of approved H-1B petitions in fiscal 2024 were for beneficiaries born in India.
• Current H-1B holders in the U.S. — extensions, amendments, and changes of status remain outside the proclamation's scope and are unaffected by this litigation either way.

What Attorneys Should Know

Practice points from the order and the current litigation posture:

• Two independent rulings now block the fee: the June 2026 Massachusetts vacatur in State of California v. Mullin (unlawful tax; APA violations) and this California injunction (procedural APA violations). The First Circuit denied the government's emergency stay of the Massachusetts vacatur in July 2026. Multiple legal pathways now point the same direction.
• This is the first decision to address the September 2026 extension directly. Counsel should no longer treat the extension proclamation as a live enforcement threat while both injunctions remain in effect — but a reversal on appeal would restore the framework immediately.
• The court's remedial structure tells you what a compliant fee would require: full notice-and-comment rulemaking plus a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. That raises the bar for the separate DHS proposed rule that would codify a roughly $100,000 fee permanently.
• Watch the government's appellate choices: a Ninth Circuit appeal here, the pending First Circuit appeal in Mullin, and the parallel D.C. Circuit litigation together create a realistic path to a Supreme Court showdown on the fee's legality.
• Exception requests (Section 1(c) national-interest waivers, directed to H1BExceptions@hq.dhs.gov) remain procedurally available under the proclamation's text, but with the fee enjoined they are largely moot for covered filings while the injunctions hold.

What Applicants Should Do

For applicants and employers, the practical posture is unchanged from June — and now reinforced:

• Do not pay the $100,000 fee. No agency should be collecting it, and no Pay.gov proof-of-payment should accompany a petition while the injunctions hold. If any party demands the payment, verify against USCIS's official guidance before tendering anything.
• File normally for extensions, transfers, amendments, and changes of status within the U.S. — the proclamation and this litigation do not reach them.
• For beneficiaries abroad proceeding with consular processing, coordinate with employer counsel before travel; consular implementation under the enjoined policies is off the table for now.
• Keep records of every filing and communication. If either injunction is lifted, compliance obligations for the fee would resume prospectively.
• Monitor USCIS's [official alert page](https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/presidential-proclamation-on-restriction-on-entry-of-certain-nonimmigrant-workers) and your counsel's updates for appellate developments — the posture can change quickly.