Two different six-figure H-1B charges are in the news at the same time, and they are frequently confused. This one is the older of the two, and its status is easy to state: it is not currently being collected.
The original measure
Presidential Proclamation 10973 required a 100,000 dollar payment in connection with certain H-1B petitions filed on or after 21 September 2025. Agency guidance implemented it.
What the courts did
On 8 June 2026, Judge Leo Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the guidance implementing the payment in California et al. v. Mullin. The court held that the payment functioned as a tax that the executive lacked authority to impose, and that its implementation violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and sought a stay. On 24 July 2026 the First Circuit declined to stay the district court ruling. The merits appeal remains pending, with briefing expected to conclude in October 2026.
The expiration date
Separately from the litigation, the proclamation carries its own sunset. It is set to expire on 21 September 2026, one year after issuance, unless it is extended. That date arrives before the appeal is likely to be resolved, which may make much of the dispute academic.
How this relates to the new proposed fee
In August 2026 DHS proposed a separate 103,265 dollar fee on cap-subject H-1B petitions through notice and comment rulemaking. DHS says that proposal rests on different statutory authority than the vacated payment, making the two distinct obligations.
They would stack only in a narrow scenario: the proclamation is extended, the 100,000 dollar payment is reinstated, and the new fee takes effect during that window. An employer caught by both would owe more than 203,000 dollars before standard H-1B filing fees. On the current timeline that combination looks unlikely, because the proclamation expires before a final rule could plausibly take effect.
What this history suggests about the new proposal
The vacated payment is the reason many observers expect the 103,265 dollar proposal to draw litigation the moment it is finalized. A challenge cannot be filed against a proposed rule, because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not final agency action. Expect any complaint to follow publication of a final rule rather than precede it.
None of that is a prediction about outcomes. It is a description of where the procedural posture stands as of early September 2026.
