Background
In September 2025, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation requiring a $100,000 payment to accompany all H-1B visa petitions for foreign workers. The proclamation cited presidential authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to impose restrictions on the entry of aliens detrimental to U.S. interests. Subsequently, the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and State (DOS) took various actions, collectively termed “the Policy,” to implement the fee requirement.
A coalition of twenty states, led by California, sued the federal government, arguing that the Policy was unlawful. The states claimed the $100,000 fee exceeded the executive branch’s statutory and constitutional authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They alleged the fee would harm their ability to staff public universities, schools, and healthcare systems, which rely on H-1B workers.
In June 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment for the states, declaring the Policy unlawful and vacating it in its entirety. The federal government appealed that decision to the First Circuit and filed an emergency motion to stay the district court’s order, which would have allowed the government to enforce the fee while the appeal was pending. This ruling addresses that motion for a stay.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit denied the government’s motion for a stay, meaning the $100,000 H-1B fee requirement remains blocked during the appeal. The court analyzed the request using the four-factor test from Nken v. Holder, focusing on the most critical factor: whether the government made a strong showing that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal. The court concluded that the government had failed to meet this burden.
The court focused on the states’ claim that the agencies exceeded their statutory authority. It found that imposing such a significant financial burden requires a clear delegation of power from Congress, which was likely absent here. The government argued that the President’s broad power under the INA to place “any restrictions” on alien entry was sufficient. The court disagreed, noting that other sections of the INA show that when Congress intends to delegate fee-imposing authority, it does so explicitly, specifying the amount and use of the funds. The general power to “restrict” entry has not historically been interpreted to include imposing a fee of this magnitude.
The court also rejected the government’s procedural argument that its implementation of the proclamation was not a “final agency action” reviewable under the APA. The court found this argument unpersuasive and inconsistent with both circuit precedent and the government’s own claims of harm. Because the government failed to show a likelihood of success and the other factors did not strongly favor a stay, the request for “extraordinary relief” was denied.
Key Takeaways
- The executive branch cannot impose a significant financial requirement, such as a large visa fee, without a clear and explicit delegation of that authority from Congress.
- General statutory language granting the President power to impose “restrictions” on immigration is likely insufficient to authorize a substantial fee that is not directly tied to administrative costs.
- Agency actions that implement a presidential directive are generally considered “final agency action” and are subject to judicial review for compliance with the law under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Why It Matters
This decision prevents the federal government from implementing a drastic and costly change to the H-1B visa program while the full appeal is heard. The ruling provides immediate relief to employers, including public institutions like universities and hospitals, that rely on foreign workers to fill critical specialty occupations and who would have been subject to the $100,000 per-petition fee.
More broadly, the order reinforces the separation of powers, underscoring that the executive branch’s authority to regulate immigration, while extensive, is constrained by the specific powers Congress has granted it. It signals that courts will look closely at whether the executive has overstepped its statutory authority, particularly when imposing financial burdens that resemble taxes or revenue-raising measures, which are powers reserved for the legislature.