On September 30, 2026, a federal judge in the Northern District of California issued an order in Global Nurse Force v. Trump that stops federal agencies from carrying out the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement. This is the second court to block the policies behind the fee. In July we reported on the Massachusetts case and the First Circuit’s refusal to reinstate the fee, in The $100,000 H-1B Fee Is Blocked Again. The California order adds a separate layer, and it covers the fee as extended by the proclamation the President signed on September 18.
What the Court Did
Judge Haywood Gilliam ruled that the agency memos and guidance used to carry out the payment requirement could not stand because DHS, USCIS, CBP, and the State Department had not gone through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. According to Ogletree Deakins, the agencies are blocked from enforcing or implementing the requirement under Proclamation 10973 and its extension, Proclamation 11069, until they follow those rulemaking steps. The court also denied the government’s motion to dismiss, so the case continues.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The ruling does not hold that the President lacked authority to issue the proclamation, and reports on the order say the proclamation itself was not blocked. The court focused on how the agencies put the payment requirement into practice. Because of that, the order does not settle whether the fee is lawful, and the question remains open in other cases. A D.C. court upheld the fee in December 2025, and that decision is on appeal.
Where Things Stand for Employers
For now, employers are not required to pay the $100,000 amount, including for workers who need consular processing or admission from abroad. USCIS has said that DHS intends to collect the payment if the orders are lifted, so petitions filed today may look different if an appeals court changes course. We have not seen a report that the government has appealed. The parties must file a joint report by October 20, ahead of a hearing on October 27, 2026, where the judge will review how the case moves forward. Two points are still unclear to us: how broadly the California order applies beyond the plaintiffs, and how agencies will treat petitions filed while the orders are in place. Employers should check with counsel before relying on either.
The order has no bearing on DHS’s other proposal, a $103,265 fee for cap-subject H-1B petitions. It remains a proposal. Comments closed on September 24, and DHS has not issued a final rule.
Must employers pay the $100,000 payment today?
Not while the court orders remain in place. Collection is blocked, but the government can appeal, and DHS has said it intends to collect if the orders are lifted.
Did the court strike down the presidential proclamation?
No. Reports on the order say the court addressed the agency policies that carry out the proclamation, not the proclamation itself.
Does this ruling apply to every employer?
Reports differ on how far the order reaches beyond the plaintiffs, and we have not reviewed the order itself. Check with counsel about how it applies to your petition.
How does the California case differ from the Massachusetts one?
Both courts found problems with how the agencies carried out the requirement. The Massachusetts ruling is on appeal at the First Circuit, and the California case is a separate action that is still moving forward in district court.
Does the court order change the proposed $103,265 fee?
No. That is a separate DHS proposal. It is not in effect, and this order does not reach it.
If you or your family members have questions about how this or other immigration and nationality matters may affect you, please do not hesitate to contact the immigration and nationality lawyers at NPZ Law Group. You can reach us by emailing info@visaserve.com or by visiting our website at www.visaserve.com for more information.