The $100,000 H-1B Fee: Where the Lawsuits Stand in April 2026

Greg V
Apr 5
4 min read

On September 19, 2025, President Trump signed a proclamation that upended H-1B hiring overnight. The order imposed a $100,000 payment requirement on new H-1B petitions filed on behalf of workers outside the United States, a staggering increase that immediately drew comparisons to a de facto ban on the program. Seven months later, the fee is still in effect, but it is under serious legal attack in three separate courts. Here is where things stand.

What the Proclamation Did

The September 19 proclamation requires employers to pay $100,000 before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will process new H-1B petitions for beneficiaries who are abroad. The stated purpose was to curb what the administration described as abuse of the H-1B program and to prioritize American workers. USCIS followed up with guidance clarifying that the fee applies to new petitions, not to extensions, amendments, or changes of employer for workers already in the United States on H-1B status. Cap-exempt employers, such as universities and affiliated nonprofit research institutions, have also received some carveouts, though the precise contours of those exemptions remain a source of confusion for many petitioners.

For ordinary private-sector employers, the practical effect has been dramatic. Entry-level H-1B roles that previously carried total government filing costs in the low-thousands now require a six-figure check just to get in the door. Many employers have put new H-1B sponsorships on hold, pivoted to other visa categories, or looked to place candidates outside the U.S. while the litigation plays out.

The Three Lawsuits

Chamber of Commerce v. DHS (D.D.C.)

The flagship case was filed on October 16, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities argued that the proclamation exceeded presidential authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, that the $100,000 charge functions as a tax that only Congress can impose, and that the administration bypassed required notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.

On December 23, 2025, Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled for the government. She concluded that the proclamation was issued under an express statutory grant of authority to the President to restrict the entry of noncitizens under INA §212(f) and that the fee, though large, fell within that delegated power. The Chamber and AAU immediately appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

State AG Challenge (California v. Noem)

On December 12, 2025, a coalition of twenty state attorneys general, led by California and Washington, filed their own challenge. The states argue that the fee harms public universities, state research institutions, and state-affiliated healthcare systems, and that it was enacted in violation of both the APA and constitutional limits on executive spending and taxation authority.

Third Challenge

A third lawsuit was filed shortly after the state AG action, broadening the set of plaintiffs and legal theories pressing against the proclamation. Collectively, the three cases put the fee in front of multiple judges at the same time.

The D.C. Circuit Appeal

On January 5, 2026, the D.C. Circuit agreed to fast-track the Chamber's appeal so that a ruling could come before or shortly after the FY 2027 H-1B registration period opened in March. Appellants filed their opening brief on January 9, 2026. The government's response was due January 30, 2026. Oral arguments were heard in February.

At argument, the panel pressed both sides on whether the $100,000 charge is best understood as a regulatory fee, an entry restriction, or a revenue-raising tax that only Congress can impose. The distinction matters: courts have generally given the President broad latitude to restrict entry under §212(f), but taxing authority is a core Article I power of Congress. Challengers have also pointed to the Supreme Court's recent decision striking down the administration's global tariff program as support for the view that the executive branch cannot raise money from regulated parties without congressional authorization.

As of early April 2026, the D.C. Circuit has not yet issued a decision. Court-watchers expect a ruling in the coming weeks, and many observers believe a preliminary injunction or remand could come as early as April or May 2026.

What Employers Should Do Now

Until a court issues an injunction, the $100,000 fee remains in force for new H-1B petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries abroad. Employers sponsoring H-1B workers should:

Confirm whether a given petition falls inside or outside the fee's scope. Extensions, amendments, and changes of employer for workers already in the U.S. generally do not trigger the charge, but the details matter.
Evaluate cap-exempt pathways, including petitions filed by or on behalf of institutions of higher education and affiliated nonprofit research entities.
Consider alternative visa strategies, including O-1, L-1, TN, and E-3 where the candidate qualifies.
Document business necessity for each H-1B sponsorship, which will be important if the fee is struck down and refund or credit procedures are put in place.

Our View

The H-1B program has been reshaped by a single proclamation and is now being reshaped again by the courts. We are monitoring all three cases closely and will update clients as soon as the D.C. Circuit rules. If your company has paused H-1B hiring because of the fee, or if you are weighing whether to file a petition now or wait, contact our office for a case-by-case strategy session.

This post is for general information only and is not legal advice. Contact Vartanian Law Firm to discuss your specific situation.