The federal appeals court did not finally strike down the Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B payment. On July 24, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the administration’s request to keep the payment in force while its appeal proceeds. That leaves a June 8 ruling vacating the policy operative for now. For example, an employer filing a covered petition for a software engineer abroad is not presently subject to the proclamation’s $100,000 payment requirement under the vacated policy. The distinction matters. The First Circuit resolved an emergency request for a stay, not the merits of the entire appeal.
Its three-judge panel concluded that the federal government had not made the required strong showing that it was likely to overturn the district court’s ruling that the policy exceeded statutory authority. The appeal in *State of California et al. v. Mullin et al.*, No. 26-1699, remains pending. The disputed requirement came from Presidential Proclamation 10973, issued on September 19, 2025. Although frequently called a “visa fee,” it was structured as an entry restriction tied to a $100,000 payment—not as an ordinary filing fee adopted through the usual immigration-fee framework.
Table of Contents
- Did the Federal Appeals Court Reject Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee?
- Why the First Circuit Found the Administration’s Statutory Case Unpersuasive
- How Presidential Proclamation 10973 Structured the $100,000 Payment
- What Employers and H-1B Workers Should Do During the Pending Appeal
- Common Misreadings of the H-1B Fee Litigation
- Why Public Institutions Joined the Challenge
- The Procedural Record and the Orders That Control
- Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Federal Appeals Court Reject Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee?
The most accurate answer is that the First Circuit rejected the administration’s attempt to preserve the payment during the appeal. Chief Judge David Barron and Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman denied the federal government’s stay motion on July 24. They did not issue a final judgment permanently invalidating the policy. A stay would have suspended the effect of U.S. District Judge Leo T.
Sorokin’s June 8 decision. Judge Sorokin granted summary judgment to 20 states, declared the implementing policy unlawful, and vacated it in its entirety. Because the First Circuit refused to grant a stay, that vacatur remains operative unless a later court order changes the legal position. This is comparable to a court declining to pause an injunction while reviewing the underlying dispute: the refusal has immediate practical consequences, but it does not predetermine the final appellate judgment. Headlines stating simply that the appeals court “struck down” or “permanently blocked” the payment therefore overstate what happened.
Why the First Circuit Found the Administration’s Statutory Case Unpersuasive
The central dispute concerns the scope of presidential authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The administration relied on 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a), provisions addressing restrictions on entry and rules governing the departure and entry of noncitizens. The First Circuit focused on whether those provisions authorized the government to condition covered H-1B petitions or entry on a $100,000 payment.
The panel emphasized that Congress expressly identified particular H-1B fees in other parts of the immigration laws. By contrast, the provisions invoked by the administration do not mention a payment of this kind. At the stay stage, the government failed to make a strong showing that it was likely to defeat the district court’s Administrative Procedure Act ruling that the policy exceeded statutory authority. That assessment has a significant limitation: it reflects the demanding but preliminary stay analysis, not a final appellate holding after full merits review. A party opposing the policy should not treat the July 24 order as a guarantee of the appeal’s result, just as an employer should not assume that the payment can never be revived through later litigation or a differently structured policy.
How Presidential Proclamation 10973 Structured the $100,000 Payment
Proclamation 10973 directed the Department of Homeland Security to restrict decisions on certain H-1B petitions unless they were accompanied or supplemented by a $100,000 payment. It also directed the state Department to approve only covered petitions accompanied by the payment. The proclamation framed these measures as restrictions on entry for certain nonimmigrant workers. The administration’s September 21, 2025, FAQ said the requirement applied to new H-1B petitions submitted after 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time that day.
According to the FAQ, previously issued visas, petitions filed before the effective time, and renewals were not covered. For example, a qualifying new petition submitted at 1 a.m. on September 21 could have fallen within the announced rule, while a renewal or a petition submitted the previous day would not have. State Department guidance described the restriction somewhat more narrowly. It referred to people seeking visa issuance or entry based on H-1B petitions filed after the effective time and stated that no visas had been revoked under the proclamation. These differences in agency wording are important because a public FAQ or guidance page cannot independently expand the authority granted by a statute or resolve every fact-specific immigration question.
What Employers and H-1B Workers Should Do During the Pending Appeal
Employers should verify the current status of the district court’s vacatur before preparing a petition, budgeting immigration expenses, or making hiring commitments. The July 24 order means the government did not obtain permission to enforce the vacated payment while the appeal proceeds, but later orders could alter that status. Petitioners should retain filing receipts, payment communications, agency notices, and records showing whether a filing was new, previously submitted, or a renewal. Workers should distinguish among three separate events: an employer’s H-1B petition, the issuance of an H-1B visa by a consulate, and admission at a U.S. port of entry.
The proclamation and agency guidance connected the payment to petitions involving workers outside the United States and to subsequent visa or entry decisions. A notice affecting one stage should not automatically be read as a decision on every stage. There is also a practical tradeoff between delaying a filing to await more certainty and proceeding under the currently operative vacatur. Delay can affect recruitment, project schedules, academic calendars, or medical staffing, while immediate filing may expose the parties to shifting agency instructions if the government later obtains relief. Case-specific advice from qualified immigration counsel is more reliable than assuming a widely shared headline applies identically to every petition.
Common Misreadings of the H-1B Fee Litigation
One common error is calling the $100,000 payment an ordinary USCIS filing fee. Existing H-1B petitions can involve congressionally authorized and agency-established charges, but the disputed payment was imposed through a presidential entry proclamation. That difference is central to the statutory-authority dispute and should not be reduced to a disagreement over the amount of a routine processing fee. Another error is assuming that every H-1B holder, renewal, or previously issued visa was subject to the payment. The administration’s own FAQ excluded renewals, previously issued visas, and petitions filed before the effective time.
The State Department also said no visas had been revoked under the proclamation. A worker with an existing H-1B visa therefore presented a materially different situation from a worker abroad relying on a newly filed petition. Claims about the policy’s effects also require care. The 20 plaintiff states alleged—and the district court found—that the payment impaired staffing at public colleges, schools, and health systems and could worsen shortages in medical and educational services. Those are court-described litigation findings, not a nationwide study quantifying every vacancy, delayed hire, or service reduction caused by the policy.
Why Public Institutions Joined the Challenge
The H-1B program permits employers to petition for temporary visas for foreign workers in specialty occupations, which generally require at least a bachelor’s degree. Although technology companies are prominent users of the program, public universities, school systems, research institutions, and health facilities also employ H-1B professionals.
A $100,000 condition could be especially consequential for a public hospital recruiting a specialist from abroad or a state university hiring a researcher. The payment could exceed a department’s available recruitment budget even when the institution had already determined that the position was difficult to fill, helping explain the states’ allegations concerning medical and educational staffing.
The Procedural Record and the Orders That Control
The operative district court judgment was entered by Judge Sorokin on June 8, 2026, after he granted summary judgment to the 20 states and vacated the policy in its entirety. The federal government appealed to the First Circuit and sought a stay pending that appeal. On July 24, 2026, the panel denied the stay motion in *State of California et al.
v. Mullin et al.*, No. 26-1699. The order left the merits appeal pending while declining to suspend the district court’s vacatur.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the First Circuit permanently invalidate the $100,000 H-1B payment?
No. It denied the government’s motion to stay the district court’s vacatur while the appeal continues. The final merits of the appeal remain unresolved.
Is the $100,000 requirement currently in effect?
The district court’s June 8 vacatur is currently operative because the First Circuit declined to stay it. A later appellate order or decision could change that position.
Who decided the stay request?
A three-judge First Circuit panel consisting of Chief Judge David Barron and Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman denied the motion.
Did the policy apply to H-1B renewals?
The administration’s September 2025 FAQ said renewals were not covered. It also excluded previously issued visas and petitions filed before the stated effective time.
Were existing H-1B visas revoked?
State Department guidance stated that no visas had been revoked under the proclamation.
Why did the courts question the payment’s legality?
The district court found that the implementing policy exceeded statutory authority. At the stay stage, the First Circuit said the government had not made a strong showing that it was likely to overturn that ruling.