Litigation over the $100,000 H-1B proclamation: how the courts have ruled and whether it is being enforcedLitigation over the $100,000 H-1B proclamation

Wang Law Firm, LLC · David Wang, Managing Attorney · Attorney-reviewed · Updated October 2026

This is a roundup page that goes court by court through each lawsuit's rulings, dates and scope of effect. This is an evolving legal issue; the information below is current as of October 9, 2026. Before filing any H-1B petition, rely on current USCIS and U.S. Department of State announcements and your attorney's latest advice.

Overview

Background: what Proclamation 10973 says

On September 19, 2025, the President signed Proclamation 10973 (Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, 90 FR 46027), effective 12:01 a.m. Eastern time on September 21, 2025, for 12 months. Relying on sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1182(f), 1185(a)), the proclamation restricts entry in H-1B specialty occupation status unless the petition is accompanied by a $100,000 payment; the Secretary of Homeland Security may grant national-interest exceptions to individuals, companies or industries. The proclamation also directs DOL to begin rulemaking to revise prevailing wage levels, and DHS to begin rulemaking to prioritize the admission of high-skilled, high-paid workers.

USCIS issued implementing guidance on October 20, 2025. Main points:

• Applies to: new petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025 for beneficiaries outside the United States who do not have a valid H-1B visa; and petitions requesting consular notification, port-of-entry notification or pre-flight inspection.
• Generally does not apply to: change of status, amendment or extension petitions approved inside the United States; petitions filed before September 21, 2025.
• Watch out: if an in-country change of status, amendment or extension request is found ineligible and the petition is instead approved for consular notification or similar processing, the payment requirement may apply.
• National-interest exceptions: must be requested from and approved by DHS before the petition is filed; USCIS has said such exceptions will be "extraordinarily rare."

On September 18, 2026, the President signed Proclamation 11069, extending the restriction for another 12 months, to September 21, 2027, with no change to the payment amount or the national-interest exception framework, and directing the relevant departments to recommend whether to extend it again within 30 days after the next H-1B lottery is completed.

1. Chamber of Commerce v. DHS (District of Columbia)

Facts and ruling

On October 16, 2025, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued DHS and other agencies, and the Association of American Universities later joined as a plaintiff, arguing that the proclamation and the agencies' implementation exceeded the authority of the President and the agencies. On December 23, 2025, Judge Beryl A. Howell denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the government's cross-motion, finding that the proclamation falls within the broad authority Congress gave the President to restrict the entry of noncitizens.

Appeal

The plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit on December 29, 2025 (No. 25-5473). The Chamber filed its opening brief and its reply to the government's brief in January and February 2026, and in late February filed a supplemental submission on the Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. As of October 9, 2026, the Chamber's case page still lists the appeal as "pending," and this page has found no reports of a D.C. Circuit decision.

Scope of effect

This judgment denied the plaintiffs' requests and by itself does not block enforcement. Its conclusion is the opposite of the two courts below, creating a split between courts.

2. The 20-state lawsuit (Massachusetts)

Facts and ruling

In December 2025, 20 states led by California sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On June 8, 2026, Judge Leo T. Sorokin granted summary judgment for the plaintiff states:

• reportedly, the court found that the payment is in substance a tax not authorized by Congress, rather than a mere restriction on entry;
• it found that the agencies' implementing policies violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA);
• it declared the policies implementing the proclamation unlawful and vacated them in full.

Stay and appeal

The government has appealed to the First Circuit and asked for a stay of the judgment pending appeal. In July 2026, the First Circuit denied the government's stay request. The First Circuit has not yet ruled on the merits of the appeal.

Scope of effect

Vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act operates on the agency action itself; reportedly, the judgment's effect is nationwide and not limited to the plaintiff states. Note that in 2025 the Supreme Court in Trump v. CASA limited federal district courts' power to issue universal injunctions but did not resolve the scope of vacatur of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act; this point may still be challenged on appeal.

3. Global Nurse Force v. Trump (Northern District of California)

Facts and ruling

On October 3, 2025, plaintiffs including unions, a nurse staffing company, schools, religious organizations and individuals sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing that the proclamation is unconstitutional and that the agencies' implementation violates the Administrative Procedure Act. On September 30, 2026, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ruled as follows:

• granted plaintiffs' request for preliminary relief, finding their Administrative Procedure Act claims likely to succeed: the agencies' implementing policies are legislative rules requiring notice and comment, which the agencies did not follow, nor did they complete the analysis required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act; and the agencies failed to consider alternatives and employers' reliance interests, which was arbitrary and capricious;
• vacated and remanded the agencies' implementing policies, covering those for both the 2025 proclamation and the September 2026 extension proclamation, and barred enforcing or implementing those policies until notice and comment and the related analyses are completed;
• did not enjoin the proclamation itself, and did not rule on whether the proclamation is an unconstitutional tax;
• denied the government's motion to dismiss; deferred class certification.

Scope of effect

As in the Massachusetts case, this is a vacatur of agency policy under the Administrative Procedure Act, and reportedly its effect is not limited to the plaintiffs in this case. As of October 9, 2026, this page has found no reports that the government has appealed the order.

4. DHS's August 2026 proposed rule

On August 25, 2026, USCIS published in the Federal Register a proposed rule, Fee for Certain H-1B Petitions (91 FR 54817, RIN 1615-AD20), which would amend 8 CFR Part 106 to charge a new dedicated fee on cap-subject H-1B petitions (including those using the additional master's degree allocation); cap-exempt petitions would not be covered. This is separate from the $100,000 payment required by the presidential proclamation: the proposed rule relies on the INA's authority for immigration adjudication fees and goes through notice and comment. The proposed rule states that if a petitioner is subject to both the proclamation payment and this new fee, both must be paid. On September 10, 2026, the Federal Register also published a correction to the proposed rule. The comment period closed on September 24, 2026; as of October 9, 2026, no final rule has been published. For the proposed fee amount and whether it ultimately takes effect, rely on the Federal Register and current USCIS announcements.

What this means for you

Employers and workers planning new H-1B petitions from abroad

• Reportedly, as of October 9, 2026, because of the Massachusetts and Northern District of California vacatur orders, the agencies are not enforcing the $100,000 payment. But both cases are on appeal or may be appealed, and the D.C. Circuit could reach the opposite conclusion.
• If the relevant court orders are stayed or reversed, the payment requirement may return. Always check the USCIS and State Department guidance in effect at the time before filing.
• Whether employers who already made the payment can get a refund has no uniform answer yet; rely on agency guidance.

H-1B holders and F-1 students in the United States

• Under USCIS's October 2025 guidance, change of status, extension and amendment petitions approved inside the United States are generally not subject to the payment; but maintaining lawful status matters, because a gap in status could mean the petition can only be approved for consular notification.
• Cap-subject petitions should also follow the progress of the proposed rule described above.

Universities and nonprofit research institutions

• The Association of American Universities is a co-plaintiff in the Chamber of Commerce case. Cap-exempt employers are outside the scope of the proposed rule, but the presidential proclamation itself does not distinguish by type of employer.

What may happen next

• D.C. Circuit decision: if it affirms the district court, the split with the Massachusetts and Northern District of California courts will become sharper; if it reverses, the plaintiffs' position is strengthened.
• The First Circuit appeal, and any appeal of the Northern District of California order (to the Ninth Circuit): will determine whether the two vacatur orders stand.
• Supreme Court: if the circuits split, the Supreme Court may ultimately resolve the issue.
• Agency rulemaking: the Northern District of California order allows the agencies to enforce after completing notice and comment and the related analyses, so the agencies may pursue separate rulemaking.

Practical tips

• Verify before filing: before each new H-1B filing, check the USCIS and State Department guidance as of that day; do not rely on information that is a few weeks old.
• Prioritize maintaining status in the United States: for beneficiaries inside the United States, aim to have the petition approved as a change of status or extension, and keep status continuous.
• Keep records: if you made a payment under the proclamation or requested a national-interest exception, keep all payment records and correspondence.
• Build in contingency plans: start dates, travel plans and budgets should account for the possibility that court rulings change.

Frequently asked questions

Decision texts and sources

• Federal Register: Proclamation 10973 (90 FR 46027)
• The White House: September 18, 2026 extension proclamation
• Federal Register: Fee for Certain H-1B Petitions proposed rule (August 25, 2026)
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Chamber of Commerce v. DHS district court case materials
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Chamber of Commerce v. DHS appeal (D.C. Circuit No. 25-5473) materials
• Plaintiffs' counsel: Global Nurse Force v. Trump case materials
• CourtListener (search each docket by case number)
• USCIS: H-1B specialty occupations (current information)

Related reading

• H-1B specialty occupation work visa guide
• Form I-129 explained
• F-1 student visa and OPT
• Trump v. CASA: limits on universal injunctions
• Immigration litigation tracker

This page is a general introduction to a court decision and is not legal advice. The law and case law change, and outcomes depend on the specific facts. To evaluate your situation, consult an attorney.