Key Takeaway 

On December 23, 2025, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld a presidential proclamation requiring employers to submit a $100,000 fee before certain new H-1B petitions will be processed. The court concluded the proclamation is a lawful exercise of broad presidential authority granted under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and rejected challenges brought by business and higher-education groups. 

There are still two additional lawsuits challenging the $100,000 fee rule in different courts with different parties and attorneys. 

What Happened 

As we previously discussed, the President issued a proclamation n September 19, 2025, imposing a condition on entry for certain H-1B workers: the employer must submit a $100,000 payment with the H-1B petition before the petition will be processed. The proclamation, which became effective September 21, 2025, applies prospectively to new petitions not yet filed, and primarily impacts H-1B beneficiaries outside the United States and those who may need to travel outside the US after an H-1B approval. 

The proclamation also provides for waivers where DHS determines entry is in the national interest and presents no threat to security or welfare. The $100,000 fee requirement will sunset after 12 months unless extended. 

Who Challenged It 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities sued DHS, the State Department, and agency leadership, arguing that: 

• the President lacked authority to impose this payment requirement, and 

• the agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), including by implementing the measure without notice-and-comment rulemaking. 

 

For an analysis of the lawsuit and a review of recent USCIS policy guidance describing who is subject the $100,000 fee, please see our blog  post. 

The Court’s Ruling 

The judge denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the government, holding the proclamation is valid and agency implementation did not violate the APA. 

Presidential Authority Over Entry 

The court relied heavily on INA provisions which authorize the President to suspend or restrict entry of noncitizens when their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The Judge emphasized that Supreme Court precedent affords significant deference to presidential judgments under these provisions. 

 

The $100,000 Fee Is a “Restriction on Entry” 

A central dispute was whether imposition of a substantial fee could qualify as an entry restriction. The court held it could, reasoning that the INA authorizes the President to impose any restrictions deemed appropriate. 

APA Claims Discounted 

The court rejected plaintiffs’ APA arguments, concluding that agencies were implementing a lawful presidential directive and therefore had no discretion to alter it through rulemaking. 

Practical Implications for Employers and Universities 

This ruling is a major disappointment for employers recruiting H-1B workers from abroad. The decision supports the position that presidential authority to regulate entry can extend to significant filing fees imposed in the form of an entry restriction. Organizations with established overseas hiring practices should review the proclamation’s waiver guidelines, as well as agency implementation guidance and any related rulemaking related to the proclamation. 

Consider Onshore Strategies Where Business Needs Permit 

Because the proclamation is focused on H-1B workers outside the United States, employers may want to assess whether it is feasible to explore whether the candidate can legally begin work under an alternative pathway (e.g., F-1 OPT/STEM OPT, L-1, O-1, TN, or E-3) to reduce reliance on a fee-subject H-1B petition. 

Prepare for Waiver Advocacy 

The proclamation includes a waiver process tied to national interest and security/welfare findings. Employers should: 

• Identify cases with strong equities (critical roles, specialized skills, urgent staffing needs), and 

• Prepare supporting documentation that aligns with stated waiver criteria. 

Next Steps and Other Litigation 

• The U.S. Chamber has publicly stated it is considering further legal action, which typically means an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, although no final decision has been announced. 

• A second lawsuit filed by a coalition that includes unions, employers, and religious groups remains pending in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to block enforcement of the $100,000 fee. The hearing on the injunction is scheduled for February 19, 2026. 

• A third lawsuit was filed in mid-December by a coalition of 20 state attorneys general. The lawsuit challenges the $100,000 fee as unlawful, alleging it is an unlawful tax/fee exceeding presidential authority that harms critical sectors such as healthcare and universities. Although little information about the plaintiffs’ litigation strategy is available, it is likely the states will seek injunctive relief on an expedited schedule.  

Meltzer Hellrung will continue to monitor all pending litigation challenging the $100,000 H-1B fee requirement, including any appeals and injunction rulings in related cases. As additional decisions, agency guidance, or regulatory actions emerge, we will provide updates and practical guidance for employers navigating the impact of the $100,000 fee on H-1B hiring strategies. Employers with questions about the impact of these developments on current or planned H-1B filings should contact their MH immigration counsel for case-specific advice. 

Scroll to Top ↑