On July 24, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the government’s motion to stay a June ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in State of California v. Mullin. The lower court had vacated a policy implementing a presidential proclamation that required a $100,000 payment to accompany H-1B petitions for foreign workers located outside the United States.
Background
In June 2026, the District Court ruled in favor of a coalition of 20 states challenging the fee. The states argued that the fee harmed public universities, schools, and healthcare systems that rely on highly skilled foreign workers. The court concluded that the agencies’ actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded statutory authority.
The court vacated the policy in its entirety, finding that Congress had not clearly authorized the executive branch to impose a payment requirement of this magnitude.
Appeals Court Rejects Emergency Stay Request
After the district court’s ruling, the administration sought an emergency stay that would have allowed the $100,000 fee requirement to remain in place while the appeal moved forward.
The First Circuit declined to do so.
In its July 24 order, the appellate court found that the government had not made a sufficiently strong showing that it was likely to succeed on appeal—one of the most important requirements for obtaining emergency relief.
The court noted that Congress has historically been explicit when authorizing immigration-related fees and pointed to provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act where Congress specifically authorized fee collection and directed how funds should be used. The court observed that the statutes relied upon by the administration did not contain similar language.
The judges also questioned whether broad presidential authority to impose immigration “restrictions” could be interpreted to authorize a $100,000 payment requirement without clear congressional authorization.
What’s Next
Because the First Circuit denied the stay request, the district court’s order vacating the H-1B fee policy remains in effect while the appeal proceeds.
The litigation itself is not over. The appellate court did not issue a final ruling on the merits of the case; it only determined that the government failed to meet the standard required for emergency relief. The underlying appeal will continue.
In addition, separate challenges to the H-1B fee policy reportedly remain pending in other federal courts. While those cases could influence future developments, the First Circuit’s decision represents a significant setback for the administration’s effort to implement the fee requirement.
Erickson Insights and Analysis
For now, employers filing H-1B petitions should not be required to submit the $100,000 payment that was mandated under the challenged policy. However, because litigation remains ongoing, employers sponsoring foreign talent should continue monitoring agency and court developments closely.
Erickson Immigration Group will continue monitoring developments and sharing updates as more news is 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.