Short answer: Because of the current H-1B fee ruling orders, agencies are not demanding or collecting the separate $100,000 payment. A Massachusetts federal court ruled on June 8, 2026, and the Northern District of California entered a second order on September 30. However, the presidential proclamation remains on the books, and appeals continue.
Therefore, an employer filing today may omit the separate payment but must still pay ordinary H-1B fees and satisfy every substantive requirement. Saying that the $100,000 policy has permanently ended would go beyond the current record.
What you will find in this article
- Whether agencies collect the separate payment today
- What the Massachusetts and California decisions cover
- Why the proclamation and implementation policies differ
- How the contrary D.C. decision affects risk
- What an employer should check before filing
- Why a separate $103,265 proposal is not current law
Quick overview
| Question | Short answer |
|---|---|
| Is the $100,000 payment collected now? | No, not while the current court orders remain effective. |
| Did a court erase the proclamation? | No. The decisions addressed implementation. |
| Do normal H-1B fees continue? | Yes. Ordinary USCIS charges still apply. |
| When did California enter its order? | September 30, 2026. |
| Are the appeals complete? | No. No final appellate resolution exists. |
| Is $103,265 a current fee? | No. Reports describe it as a separate proposal. |
What does the H-1B fee ruling change today?
Under the present agency position, an employer does not send the additional $100,000 payment with an H-1B petition. Immigration law firms reported that DHS would follow the Massachusetts order and would neither demand nor collect the payment while that order remains in force. The agency also reserved its position if the order changes.
Nevertheless, ordinary H-1B filing charges remain due. The base petition fee, employer-specific supplements, and premium processing where requested follow their own rules. Likewise, the specialty-occupation, employer relationship, wage, and Labor Condition Application requirements remain unchanged.
Our previous article about the extension of the $100,000 policy now needs this court update. Although a second proclamation extended the period, agencies currently cannot implement the separate payment.
What did the two H-1B fee ruling orders decide?
| Court | Date | Practical effect |
|---|---|---|
| District of Massachusetts, California v. Mullin | June 8, 2026 | Invalidated the $100,000 implementation policy. |
| First Circuit | July 24, 2026 | Declined to stay the Massachusetts decision. |
| Northern District of California, Global Nurse Force v. Trump | September 30, 2026 | Partially enjoined agency implementation, not the proclamation itself. |
| District Court for D.C. | December 2025 | Upheld the payment in a separate case; appeal remains pending. |
Global Nurse Force proceeds as No. 25-cv-08454 before Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. The court entered Document 130 on September 30, 2026 and granted the preliminary-injunction request in part.
According to law-firm summaries, the court found the DHS implementation guidance arbitrary and concluded that agencies had skipped notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The order also reaches the implementation of the second proclamation that extended the policy for another year.
Why can the H-1B fee ruling stop collection only?
A presidential proclamation and the agency directions used to collect money are distinct legal instruments. The California court did not vacate the proclamation or finally resolve the scope of presidential authority. Instead, it restricted the agencies’ implementation steps.
That distinction explains the practical result. The proclamation can remain in the record while the government lacks an enforceable mechanism to demand the payment today. Consequently, employers need not include it under current instructions, but they should account for the possibility of later appellate change.
Moreover, a preliminary injunction does not resolve every merits question forever. Employers should monitor new district-court orders, appellate action, and USCIS filing instructions together.
How does the H-1B fee ruling interact with the D.C. case?
In December 2025, the District Court for the District of Columbia reached a different result in Chamber of Commerce v. DHS and upheld the payment. That dispute is now before the D.C. Circuit. As of October 12, 2026, no final appellate ruling has resolved the conflict.
Different rulings make the legal position unsettled. Still, the active Massachusetts order and the second California decision support the agency’s current non-collection position. Employers should follow that position rather than speculate about an appellate result.
Risk has two parts. First, the filing must comply with the instructions effective on the receipt date. Second, a future appellate order might change agency practice. Budget planning can recognize the latter without treating it as a present payment obligation.
What should an employer do after the H-1B fee ruling?
First, check the USCIS form and fee instructions on the actual filing date. The employer should not add a separate $100,000 payment under the current position, but all ordinary fees must be correct. A fee error can affect intake even when the petition otherwise has strong evidence.
Next, document the position’s specialty-occupation character, the LCA, wage level, and worksite arrangement. The court decisions do not relax those requirements. Our article on the salary-weighted H-1B selection system addresses a different stage and does not alter petition eligibility.
Finally, compare alternatives under their own standards. The O-1 cost and eligibility comparison explains why O-1 evidence differs. A category choice should not rest solely on the current absence of the $100,000 payment.
Is the separate $103,265 proposal already effective?
Legal reporting described an August 2026 DHS proposal that would impose $103,265 on some new cap-subject H-1B petitions. It is a proposal, not a current fee. Employers should avoid treating that number as an amount due today.
The Massachusetts and California cases address implementation of the existing $100,000 policy. A distinct rulemaking proposal can raise different legal and procedural questions. Until the government publishes a final rule, its coverage, effective date, and final amount remain unsettled.
Therefore, employers should separate the proposal from the filing instructions that control today’s petition. Current form guidance and H-1B services provide the operational starting point.
Common mistakes
- Saying that courts permanently abolished the $100,000 policy
- Treating the proclamation and implementation guidance as one document
- Assuming ordinary USCIS fees also stopped
- Describing a preliminary injunction as final merits judgment
- Predicting the D.C. Circuit outcome
- Treating the separate $103,265 proposal as current law
Short checklist
- Check USCIS fees on the filing date.
- Do not automatically add the separate $100,000 payment.
- Keep the LCA and position evidence current.
- Monitor district and appellate orders.
- Plan for possible policy change without prepaying it.
- Compare alternatives under their own legal tests.
Frequently asked questions
Did the H-1B fee ruling abolish $100,000 permanently?
No. Current orders stop collection, but the proclamation remains and appeals continue.
Should an employer send $100,000 today?
Under the current agency position, no. The employer should still verify official instructions on the filing date.
Are ordinary H-1B fees still due?
Yes. The court decisions did not eliminate ordinary petition charges or eligibility requirements.
What is the date of the California order?
The docket shows that the court filed the order on September 30, 2026. Some secondary reports used October 1 as their publication date.
Does the D.C. decision restore collection?
Not under current practice. That case reached a contrary result and remains on appeal, so employers should monitor it without predicting the outcome.
Is the proposed $103,265 fee being collected?
No. Reports describe it as a separate proposal, not a final fee effective for current filings.
Conclusion: Follow today’s instructions and monitor the appeals
Two federal decisions currently prevent collection of the separate $100,000 H-1B payment. However, the proclamation remains on the books and appellate litigation continues. Employers should file under present USCIS instructions, pay ordinary charges, and track legal changes.
To review the fees and evidence for a planned petition, contact Clinch Law Firm.
Legal information notice
This article provides general information only. It does not create an attorney-client relationship, provide individualized advice, or guarantee an outcome. Legal information checked on: October 12, 2026.
