A federal judge in California issued a second injunction against the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee for certain new H-1B visas on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, finding that federal agencies did not follow required rulemaking procedures.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland granted a request from a coalition of unions, employers and nonprofit organizations to block U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the State Department from implementing the fee while their lawsuit continues, Reuters reported October 1.
What the new order changes
The ruling adds a separate legal barrier to the fee. It is not the first court order against the policy: a federal judge in Boston struck it down in June in litigation brought by 20 states, and an appeals court declined in July to pause that earlier decision.
The California case focuses on the process used by the agencies. Gilliam concluded that USCIS and the State Department failed to complete the rulemaking steps required before enforcing the charge. The injunction keeps those agencies from implementing the fee against the plaintiffs while the case proceeds.
This is not a final nationwide resolution of every dispute involving H-1B fees. Appeals remain possible, and separate litigation is pending. Employers and applicants should use current USCIS guidance rather than assuming that every fee proposal or court order has the same scope.
Why the fee became a major business issue
The H-1B program allows U.S. employers to sponsor foreign workers for jobs requiring specialized knowledge. Technology, healthcare, education and research employers are among the program’s major users.
The program generally makes 65,000 new visas available each fiscal year, plus 20,000 for workers with qualifying advanced U.S. degrees. Before the disputed policy, total filing costs typically ranged from roughly $2,000 to $5,000 depending on the employer and petition.
The $100,000 charge sharply changed that calculation. The administration said the higher cost was intended to discourage abuse and protect American workers. Challengers argued that the president lacked authority to impose such a large charge without Congress and that the abrupt rollout disrupted hiring plans.
How this ruling differs from the June decision
The Associated Press reported June 8 that U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston viewed the charge as an unauthorized tax and held that the executive branch had exceeded its authority. The latest California order instead centers on the agencies’ failure to use the required rulemaking process.
The two cases therefore reach a similar practical result through different legal reasoning. That distinction matters on appeal because a higher court can agree with one theory while rejecting another.
A separate permanent-fee proposal is still pending
The Department of Homeland Security has also moved toward a permanent fee of about $103,000 through a separate administrative process. That proposal is not the same policy addressed in Wednesday’s injunction and could face its own legal challenges if finalized.
The latest decision also does not change other H-1B requirements, including eligibility standards, annual caps or employer sponsorship rules. It addresses the disputed extraordinary fee rather than the visa category itself.
For additional workplace-policy context, AskNovus recently covered California’s new rules governing automated employment decisions.
Featured image: Kelly Sikkema via Unsplash.
Sources
- Reuters, October 1, 2026
- Associated Press, June 8, 2026
- University of Michigan International Center update, July 27, 2026