First Circuit Keeps $100,000 H-1B Payment Requirement Blocked for Now

A federal appeals court has declined to revive or pause a $100,000 payment requirement for certain new H-1B visa petitions while the Trump administration appeals a lower-court ruling against the policy.

The First Circuit issued its stay-denial order on July 24, 2026, in State of California v. Mullin. The decision leaves the June 8 judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in effect for now. That lower-court judgment vacated the federal policy implementing the payment requirement.

What the First Circuit decided

The three-judge panel did not issue a final ruling on the administration’s appeal. Instead, it considered whether the government had met the demanding standard for a stay, which would have changed the status quo while the case proceeded.

The panel concluded that the administration had not made a strong enough showing that it was likely to succeed on its argument that federal immigration statutes authorized the charge. The court also found that the government’s arguments about the other stay factors presented, at most, a mixed picture.

A central issue was whether the payment operates more like a tax or revenue-raising charge than an ordinary immigration regulation. The court said Congress generally must speak clearly when authorizing executive officials to impose significant financial burdens, whether those burdens are described as fees or taxes.

The panel noted that the immigration statutes cited by the administration do not expressly refer to imposing a payment of this kind. It also pointed to other provisions of immigration law in which Congress has specifically authorized fees and described how collected funds may be used.

What the lower court had done

The Massachusetts case was brought by 20 states, which argued that the policy would make it harder for public schools, public colleges, universities and health-care systems to recruit workers. The states said the added cost could worsen staffing shortages in education, medicine and research.

On June 8, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled for the states and vacated the implementing policy. The administration then asked the district court and the First Circuit to keep the policy in place during the appeal. Those requests were unsuccessful.

Who may be affected

The dispute matters to employers that use the H-1B program for specialized positions, including technology companies, universities, hospitals and research institutions. Foreign workers seeking H-1B status may also face uncertainty if the policy is later reinstated or if another court reaches a different conclusion.

The $100,000 payment did not apply to every H-1B worker, petition or visa situation. H-1B costs and eligibility requirements can vary by petition and employer circumstances. The immediate ruling concerns the challenged payment requirement and its implementation, not the entire H-1B program.

What happens next

The broader appeal remains pending. The First Circuit’s order preserves the lower-court judgment while the case continues, but it does not permanently resolve whether the administration had authority to impose the payment.

Employers and institutions planning H-1B hiring should continue monitoring federal agency guidance and future court orders rather than assume the dispute is over. Further briefing and a merits ruling in the First Circuit are possible, followed by requests for review in a higher court.

Sources

• First Circuit order in State of California v. Mullin
• Reuters: Appeals court rejects Trump bid to halt H-1B fee ruling
• Associated Press: Federal judge blocks Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee