California federal judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. issued an order on September 30, 2026, preventing three federal agencies from enforcing policies tied to a controversial $100,000 H-1B visa payment requirement.
The ruling blocks U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Department of State from implementing the fee.
The payment requirement was originally established through Presidential Proclamation 10973, signed by President Donald Trump on September 19, 2025, and later extended by Presidential Proclamation 11069.
The case, Global Nurse Force v. Trump, was brought by a broad coalition including employers, labor organisations, schools, healthcare providers, religious organisations, and individuals challenging the fee.
Plaintiffs were represented by the Justice Action Center, Democracy Forward, and other counsel, who argued the proclamation violated the separation of powers and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The lawsuit alleges the $100,000 payment requirement unlawfully conditions visa petition adjudication on a fee that exceeds presidential statutory authority and bypasses Congressional taxation powers.
Plaintiffs also argued the policy bypassed the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirements, which federal agencies are legally obligated to follow before implementing new rules.
The complaint specifically highlights immediate harm to U.S. healthcare systems, universities, and religious ministries that rely heavily on H-1B workers but cannot absorb such a steep fee.
Judge Gilliam found that the agencies’ implementing policies were likely unlawful under the APA, determining plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that DHS guidance was arbitrary and capricious.
The court barred enforcement of the fee policies under both the original September 2025 proclamation and its September 18, 2026 extension, pending completion of formal rulemaking procedures.
Agencies must complete proper notice-and-comment rulemaking and the analysis required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act before the fee policies can be enforced.
Crucially, the court did not enjoin the proclamations themselves and declined to rule on whether the President had exceeded his executive authority in issuing them.
This California decision represents the second major adverse federal court ruling against the fee, following a separate Massachusetts court decision that is currently on appeal.
On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated agency guidance implementing the payment requirement in State of California v. Mullin, No. 1:25-cv-13829.
The First Circuit subsequently denied the government’s request for a stay on July 24, 2026, leaving the Massachusetts block firmly in place while the appeal continues.
Federal courts have reached conflicting conclusions on the fee’s legality, raising the possibility of further appellate review and potentially a future U.S. Supreme Court examination.
Employers should note the court’s ruling does not affect the Department of Homeland Security’s separately proposed $103,265 fee for H-1B cap-subject petitions, which remains in the rulemaking process and is not currently in effect.
The $100,000 fee is not currently enforceable, though additional court rulings, appellate decisions, or new agency actions could alter that status at any time.