A second federal court has set aside the policies that put the $100,000 payment on new H-1B petitions. This time the ruling also covers the September 2026 renewal of the proclamation. On September 30, 2026, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a 35-page order in Global Nurse Force v. Trump (No. 4:25-cv-08454-HSG). The order vacates and remands the DHS, USCIS, CBP and State Department policies that implement Proclamation 10973. It also bars the agencies from “enforcing or implementing” any policies made under that proclamation “and its extension in Proclamation No. 11069” until they complete notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act and a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis of the effect on small businesses.
The plaintiffs who sought the injunction are small employers that rely on H-1B hiring. They include a Detroit auto-parts manufacturer, a rural North Carolina kidney-care practice, a K–12 school on a Sioux reservation in South Dakota, a group of public language-immersion charter schools, and the nurse-staffing agency the case is named for. Judge Gilliam found they were likely to win on two APA claims. First, the agencies did not consider alternatives to the $100,000 figure, which makes the policies arbitrary and capricious. Second, the policies are legislative rules that required public notice and comment, which never happened. The court noted that the government had never before raised H-1B fees without advance notice, “and had never increased them by anywhere close to this magnitude.” The previous increases were $1,125 in 2024 and $10 in 2019. It rejected the argument that the agency guidance could not be reviewed because it only carried out a presidential directive. It waived any bond and denied the government’s request for a stay pending appeal.
The order is narrower than it may sound. The court did not rule on whether the President had authority under INA §212(f) to impose the payment. It sidestepped that question, granted relief only against the agency policies, and “otherwise denie[d]” the motion. It also denied class certification and the government’s motion to dismiss. The judge explained why class status was unnecessary: employers are “now doubly protected.” The District of Massachusetts had already vacated the same policies in California v. Mullin in June, and the First Circuit refused to stay that ruling in July.
Why a second ruling matters. The Mullin vacatur is the order currently keeping the fee unenforceable, and the government’s appeal of it is pending in the First Circuit. A third case, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s challenge, went the other way: the D.C. district court upheld the fee, and that case is on appeal in the D.C. Circuit. Until now, a First Circuit win for the government could have revived collection of the $100,000 payment, including under the renewed proclamation that runs to September 21, 2027. The Ninth Circuit-track order is independent of Mullin and expressly names Proclamation 11069, so reversing Mullin alone would no longer be enough. The court set a case-management conference for October 27, 2026, with a joint statement due October 20, and expects the Supreme Court to “eventually provide further clarity.”
What it means for applicants. For now, H-1B petitions for workers outside the U.S. proceed under the ordinary fee schedule with no $100,000 payment. This ruling does not affect the separate $103,265 H-1B fee that DHS proposed in August through ordinary fee rulemaking. Comments on that proposal closed on September 24, and Judge Gilliam’s order mentions it without ruling on it. Employers planning FY2027 cap petitions should budget for both outcomes. H-1B professionals who want a path that does not depend on an employer’s willingness to pay new fees can look at the EB-2 National Interest Waiver: it is self-petitioned and subject to neither charge.
Need help with your immigration petition? Visit QuickFiling.us for AI-guided NIW and EB-1A petition preparation.
Source: U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. (Global Nurse Force v. Trump, Dkt. 130)