Two recent federal court decisions have temporarily halted significant immigration policies and could provide relief for employers and foreign nationals with affected cases.
$100,000 H-1B Visa Payment Requirement Struck Down
On June 8, 2026, a federal district court in Massachusetts ruled that the Trump administration’s $100,000 payment requirement for certain H-1B petitions is unlawful. The government appealed and asked the First Circuit Court of Appeals to put the ruling on hold while the appeal proceeds.
On July 24, the First Circuit denied that request, leaving the district court’s ruling in effect. The $100,000 payment is therefore not currently required for H-1B petitions covered by the former policy.
USCIS has stated that it disagrees with the court’s ruling but will comply while the litigation continues. The agency has also indicated that it intends to collect the payment if the court’s order is ultimately overturned.
Employers considering H-1B filings should therefore review their cases with immigration counsel, particularly where the timing of filing or international travel is a consideration.
USCIS Required to Resume Adjudications in Certain Paused Cases
On June 5, 2026, a federal district court in Rhode Island decided that several USCIS policies were unlawful, and vacated them, including policies that had paused adjudications of immigration benefits for nationals of certain countries and required additional review of some cases.
USCIS announced that it would comply with the decision, while expressly disagreeing with the court’s ruling.
On July 15, the court denied the government’s request to stay the decision while its appeal proceeds. The vacatur therefore remains in effect, and USCIS should resume adjudicating cases that were subject to the holds.
Employers and foreign nationals with cases that have been unusually delayed should review their pending matters and watch for renewed USCIS activity, including adjudications, requests for evidence, or other case actions.
Both decisions remain subject to further litigation.
We will continue to monitor developments and their impact and report to employer and foreign national employee clients where appropriate.
Disclaimer: This information is not intended as legal advice in any specific case. The facts of a specific case may render the information inapplicable.
Claire Pratt and Chris Beckerson © Jewell Stewart Pratt Beckerson & Carr PC 2026
