In another major setback for the administration’s $100,000 H-1B fee initiative, a federal judge in California has blocked federal agencies from enforcing guidance and policies implementing the fee, finding that the agencies likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The ruling comes on top of the separate Massachusetts decision that previously vacated the policy.
The case is Global Nurse Force v. Trump, No. 4:25-cv-08454 (N.D. Cal.), and the order was issued by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. on September 30, 2026.
Background
As EIG previously reported, Presidential Proclamation 10973, issued in September 2025, required employers to pay a $100,000 supplemental fee when filing certain new H-1B petitions. The policy primarily targeted workers located outside the United States and was promoted as a measure to combat perceived abuse of the H-1B program.
The administration later extended the proclamation through September 2027 under Proclamation 11069.
Court Finds Agency Guidance Likely Violates APA
While the California court did not immediately decide whether the President exceeded his authority in issuing the proclamation, it found that the agencies’ implementing policies were likely unlawful under the APA.
Failure to Conduct Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking
The court concluded that:
- USCIS, CBP, and the Department of State created substantive policies implementing the fee;
- Those policies functioned as legislative rules;
- The agencies failed to conduct the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process; and
- No applicable APA exception justified bypassing those procedures.
Judge Gilliam held that the agencies’ actions likely violated the APA’s procedural requirements.
Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action
The court also found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the implementing policies were arbitrary and capricious.
According to the decision, the agencies failed to:
- Consider alternatives;
- Address the reliance interests of affected employers;
- Adequately explain the implementation framework; or
- Demonstrate reasoned decision-making.
Agencies Enjoined From Enforcement
The court ordered that:
- The agency policies implementing the $100,000 fee are vacated and remanded;
- Federal agencies are enjoined from enforcing or implementing those policies; and
- Agencies must complete APA notice-and-comment rulemaking and Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis before attempting to implement the fee again.
The court declined to require a bond from plaintiffs and also denied the government’s request for a stay pending appeal.
Erickson Insights & Analysis
The California decision further weakens the government’s effort to implement the $100,000 H-1B fee through agency guidance. Combined with the Massachusetts court’s earlier ruling, the administration now faces significant legal obstacles before the fee could be imposed again.
At the same time, DHS continues pursuing a separate proposed rule that would establish a new $103,265 fee for cap-subject H-1B petitions through traditional rulemaking procedures.
Erickson Immigration Group will continue to monitor developments and share updates as more news becomes available. Please contact your employer or EIG attorney if you have questions about anything we’re reporting above or if you have case-specific questions.