Federal Court Vacates Trump Administration’s $100,000 H‑1B Supplemental Payment Requirement

A federal judge in Massachusetts has struck down the Trump Administration’s 2025 Proclamation that imposed a $100,000 supplemental payment on all new H‑1B petitions.

What Happened

In State of California et al. v. Mullin et al., twenty states challenged Proclamation 10973, which required employers to pay $100,000 before filing any new H‑1B petition. The Proclamation relied on INA §§ 212(f) and 215(a), the same statutory authorities used in prior presidential entry restrictions.

The court noted that the Proclamation framed the H‑1B program as being “deliberately exploited to replace… American workers” and claimed widespread wage suppression. But the judge emphasized that nothing in the Proclamation addressed the realities of state employers, nonprofits, or higher‑education institutions, which were among the plaintiffs.

Why the Court Struck It Down

Judge Sorokin granted summary judgment for the plaintiff states and vacated the policy.

Key takeaways:

1. The President Exceeded His Statutory Authority

The court held that §§ 212(f) and 215(a) allow the President to restrict entry, not to impose what is effectively a massive new fee or tax on visa petitions. The opinion highlights that plaintiffs alleged the Proclamation “usurps Congress’s exclusive and plenary constitutional authority to set immigration policy and to raise revenue.”

2. The Payment Functioned as an Unauthorized Tax

Congress—not the Executive—controls revenue‑raising measures. The court found that the $100,000 payment bore no resemblance to the cost‑recovery fees DHS is permitted to set under 8 U.S.C. § 1356(m).

3. The Consular Nonreviewability Doctrine Did Not Apply

The government argued that courts cannot review visa‑related decisions. The judge rejected this, noting plaintiffs were not challenging individual visa denials but a forward‑looking policy that allegedly exceeded statutory and constitutional limits.

4. Plaintiffs Had Standing

States demonstrated concrete harm, including worsened shortages of teachers, university researchers, and medical professionals. The court cited allegations that the policy would “cause cascading harm throughout the Plaintiff States” by undermining healthcare and education systems.

What This Means for Employers

• The $100,000 H‑1B payment requirement is vacated.

• USCIS and the State Department may not enforce or collect the supplemental payment.

• Standard H‑1B filing fees and procedures remain in place.

• Employers—including universities, nonprofits, and state agencies—avoid a cost increase that would have made many hires impossible.

Looking Ahead

The government will likely appeal, but for now, the ruling restores the pre‑Proclamation H‑1B framework. Employers should continue filing H‑1B petitions under existing statutory and regulatory fee schedules.