TLDR: A federal judge has invalidated the Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B fee, ruling that the government lacked the authority to impose it. While employers may now have a path forward for H-1B filings without the fee, an appeal is already underway, creating continued uncertainty for businesses and foreign professionals alike.
Transcript:
Hello everyone, I’m Gabriella Agostinelli with Berardi Immigration Law, and today we’re discussing one of the most significant immigration developments of 2026.
A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration’s controversial $100,000 fee on certain H-1B petitions, holding that the government lacked the legal authority to impose it.
The ruling is a major victory for employers, universities, hospitals, research institutions, and foreign professionals who have spent the better part of last year navigating uncertainty and unprecedented costs.
But before anyone rushes to celebrate, there is an important catch: the administration has already announced its intention to appeal.
So what exactly did the court decide? What does this mean legally? Can employers start filing H-1B petitions again without paying the fee? And perhaps most importantly, should they?
Let’s break it down.
So what was the $100,000 fee?
As many of you know, the administration announced a policy in September 2025 requiring a $100,000 payment for certain new H-1B petitions.
This was not a modest increase. This was a seismic shift in the economics of the H-1B program.
For many employers, especially small and mid-sized businesses, startups, universities, healthcare organizations, and nonprofits, the fee effectively shut the door on H-1B sponsorship.
Many employers delayed hiring. Many foreign nationals lost opportunities. Many companies simply concluded that sponsorship was no longer financially viable.
The fee generated immediate litigation across the country and became one of the most controversial immigration measures introduced during the past year.
The Massachusetts federal court concluded yesterday that the administration exceeded its authority.
Judge Leo Sorokin found that the $100,000 charge was not merely a regulatory fee. Instead, the court characterized it as a tax.
Why does that matter?
Because under our constitutional system, Congress generally has the authority to impose taxes, not the executive branch acting on its own.
The court also found problems under the Administrative Procedure Act, concluding that the government lacked a lawful basis to implement the policy in the manner it did.
Most importantly, the court vacated the fee policy in its entirety.
This means the court did not merely pause enforcement. It set aside the policy altogether.
What does “vacated” mean?
This is an important legal distinction.
When a court vacates a rule or policy, the government generally loses the authority to enforce that policy unless and until a higher court reverses the decision.
As of today, USCIS and the State Department are legally prohibited from enforcing the vacated fee requirement.
In plain English, the court has said the fee is unlawful. The government simply cannot continue collecting it as though nothing happened.
The legal foundation supporting the fee has been removed.
That is a very significant development.
But does this mean employers can immediately resume filing?
That is the question.
Legally speaking, employers now have a strong argument that they are entitled to proceed with H-1B filings without paying the $100,000 fee.
The court’s order is currently in effect.
The fee has been invalidated.
The government has lost on the merits at the district court level.
However, immigration law rarely operates in a vacuum.
Just because something is legally available does not necessarily mean it’s strategically advisable, and that’s where things become more complicated.
The administration is appealing.
The White House already announced that it intends to challenge the decision.
That means we are entering the next phase of litigation.
The government may seek a stay of the ruling while the appeal proceeds.
A stay would essentially put the district court’s decision on hold.
If an appellate court grants a stay, the fee could potentially be reinstated while the appeal is being litigated.
That is the key issue employers should be watching over the coming days and weeks, not merely whether an appeal is filed. We fully expect one.
The critical question is whether a higher court allows the administration to temporarily revive the fee while the appeal is pending.
So what are we telling clients right now?
This is where we may differ from some of the more aggressive commentary you’ve seen online.
Yes, the ruling is significant.
Yes, the ruling is favorable.
Yes, employers currently have legal support for proceeding without the fee.
But I do not believe this decision instantly eliminates all risk.
In my view, employers should take a measured approach.
If there is an urgent hiring need, a business necessity, an expiring work authorization, or a time-sensitive filing deadline, there are strong arguments for moving forward under the current legal landscape.
The court has spoken.
The fee has been vacated.
An employer should not feel compelled to continue operating under a requirement that a federal court has declared unlawful.
However, for employers whose filings are discretionary or can reasonably wait several weeks, there may be more value in monitoring how this appeal unfolds.
The reason is simple.
We do not yet know how aggressively the administration will pursue emergency relief.
We do not know whether a stay will be requested.
And we do not know how appellate courts will respond.
My professional view, if you’re looking for my practical assessment, is this:
I do not believe employers should assume the matter is over.
The litigation is not finished.
But I also do not believe employers should continue behaving as though the $100,000 fee remains unquestionably valid.
The government lost.
The fee has been struck down.
Again, I will say that the court’s order currently controls.
Those facts matter.
For many employers that have postponed critical hires for months, there is now a legitimate legal basis to revisit those decisions.
At the same time, prudent employers should remain prepared for additional developments.
Immigration practitioners have learned repeatedly over the last several years that policy can change quickly through litigation.
So what happens next?
Over the coming weeks, we will be watching for several developments:
- Whether the government formally files its appeal.
- Whether it requests a stay.
- Whether USCIS issues operational guidance regarding pending and future filings.
- Whether other courts reach similar or different conclusions in related litigation.
Those developments will determine whether this ruling becomes the final chapter in the $100,000 fee saga or merely the beginning of the next round.
This decision is a major rebuke of the administration’s attempt to dramatically increase the cost of H-1B sponsorship through executive action.
The court has made clear that immigration policy, no matter how controversial, must still operate within the limits established by Congress and the Constitution.
For employers and foreign nationals, this ruling creates meaningful opportunities that did not exist a week ago, but it does not eliminate uncertainty.
Again, our recommendation at this stage is straightforward:
Review any H-1B matters that were postponed because of the fee.
Evaluate business urgency.
Assess whether filing now provides a strategic advantage.
Remain prepared for further developments as the appeal moves forward.
As always, every case is different, and decisions should be made based on the specific facts, timing considerations, and risk tolerance involved.
We’ll be monitoring the litigation closely and provide updates as soon as additional guidance becomes available.
Thank you for watching, and continue to follow Berardi Immigration Law on YouTube.
Ready to have Berardi on your side?
Whether you’re a business looking to hire or a professional hoping to relocate, immigration law can be complicated. But you don’t have to do it alone. Put our experience to work for you.