The FY 2026 H-1B cap registration period is about to begin, with employers required to complete electronic registration for beneficiaries between March 4 and March 19, 2026.
Although the 2026 H-1B filing season has not fully unfolded yet, legal challenges to the already effective $100,000 H-1B fee policy are entering a critical stage.
Recent developments at the U.S. Supreme Court have given new momentum to plaintiffs challenging the policy. After the Court struck down Trump’s global tariff policy, attention quickly turned to a similar constitutional question: Can the executive branch impose a massive fee like this without clear authorization from Congress?
That question now sits at the center of the lawsuits over the H-1B fee. And because of this new legal backdrop, there is growing speculation that a judge could issue a preliminary injunction as early as April or May 2026. If that happens, affected employers may not have to pay the $100,000 fee while the litigation continues.
Since Trump announced the policy in late September 2025, the $100,000 H-1B fee has become one of the most controversial developments in employment-based immigration.
The impact is straightforward: for certain employers, the cost of pursuing H-1B sponsorship suddenly became dramatically more expensive. A six-figure added fee is not just a compliance adjustment. For many employers, it functions like a barrier to entry.
Supporters of the policy argue that it is designed to crack down on long-standing H-1B abuse, including mass filings, low-quality registrations, low-wage sponsorship strategies, and business models built around exploiting loopholes in the system. In that view, the policy could help redirect H-1B numbers back toward legitimate employers and international students with real job opportunities.
Critics, however, argue that the core issue is not simply whether the policy is strict. The bigger issue is whether it is lawful.
Since the policy took effect, several groups and organizations have filed lawsuits challenging it.
The earliest and most closely watched case is currently being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs are a coalition that includes labor unions, healthcare organizations, nurse staffing agencies, higher education professionals, and immigrant rights groups.
Two other cases are also moving forward:
A lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which sought an injunction but had that request denied by a federal judge in Washington, D.C. before Christmas 2025. The Chamber is now appealing.
A third lawsuit filed in Massachusetts by California and several other Democratic-led states.
The challenge to the $100,000 H-1B fee is no longer a fringe legal fight. It has become a multi-front battle with potentially national consequences.
One of the most striking facts revealed during litigation is this: according to Department of Justice attorneys, since the policy took effect in late September 2025, only around 70 U.S. companies have actually paid the $100,000 fee.
That number is tiny. On its face, it suggests the policy has had a chilling effect far beyond the number of employers who actually went through with payment.
But the government used that same number to make a very different argument. DOJ attorneys reportedly argued that because so few companies paid the fee, the policy is not really about raising revenue and therefore should not be treated as a tax. If it is not a tax, then, they argue, the plaintiffs’ claim that Congress must clearly authorize such a measure becomes weaker.
That reasoning has drawn obvious criticism. To many observers, saying a policy is not revenue-driven because it is so expensive that hardly anyone can pay it sounds less like a legal defense and more like a contradiction.
A key reason this case may now gain traction is the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning Trump’s global tariff policy.
In that decision, the justices reaffirmed an important constitutional principle: if Congress delegates authority to the executive branch to impose fees or charges, that delegation must be clearly stated. Whether the government labels it a fee or a tax does not remove the need for explicit authorization.
That principle could matter enormously in the H-1B fee cases.
The plaintiffs argue that the $100,000 fee is arbitrary and capricious, and that the administration failed to follow the notice-and-comment procedures required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). According to their argument, the policy was announced by presidential proclamation and implemented immediately, without the process usually required for a major regulatory action.
They also argue that Congress has permitted immigration-related agencies to collect fees for administering immigration programs, but not to impose a six-figure charge unrelated to program management costs.
The government, on the other hand, has reportedly argued that because the fee was issued through a presidential proclamation rather than a traditional agency rule, it is not subject to APA review in the same way. It also maintains that because so few people paid it, the fee should not be considered a tax.
That argument has not been especially persuasive to critics. It sounds like this: because the fee was so aggressive that almost nobody could absorb it, the government now says it does not count as a revenue measure.
One of the strongest points raised by the plaintiffs is that the $100,000 charge does not merely impose a burden. It effectively shuts many employers out of the H-1B system altogether.
Their argument is simple: if almost no small employer can afford the fee, then this is not just a fee. It is a de facto ban.
That matters because even if the policy does not explicitly say small businesses cannot sponsor H-1B workers, the practical result may be the same. By making sponsorship prohibitively expensive, the administration may have functionally eliminated access for startups, small businesses, and other employers with legitimate hiring needs but limited budgets.
This is one of the most important real-world issues in the case. The policy may have been framed as a reform targeting abuse, but in practice it may hit smaller employers far harder than large, well-capitalized companies.
So far, the judge in the Northern District of California has not ruled on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
However, after the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling, the judge asked both sides to submit supplemental briefing addressing the effect of that decision on this case. That is a meaningful signal. It shows the court sees at least some relevance between the Supreme Court’s reasoning on executive authority and the H-1B fee dispute.
That is why many observers believe the policy could face a real turning point in April or May 2026.
If the court concludes that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, or that employers would suffer irreparable harm without court intervention, it could temporarily block enforcement of the fee while the case proceeds.
Such a ruling would not necessarily end the policy permanently, but it would be a major development for employers and foreign nationals watching the 2026 H-1B cycle closely.
Even before the litigation is resolved, one thing already seems likely: the total number of H-1B registrations in 2026 will probably fall sharply.
For business models built around flooding the system with low-quality or low-wage registrations, a $100,000 added fee can destroy the economics overnight. In that sense, the policy may indeed close loopholes that have distorted the H-1B system for years.
Supporters see that as a long-overdue correction. They argue that the reform could help ensure H-1B opportunities go back to employers with real labor needs and to international students and professionals pursuing genuine career paths.
But that is only half the story.
The other half is about procedural fairness. In the U.S. legal system, a policy does not become lawful simply because some people like the outcome. Even if a reform aims at a real problem, the government still has to follow proper legal procedures and stay within the authority Congress actually gave it.
That is why this case matters beyond immigration. It asks a broader question: Can the government bypass procedural safeguards in order to reach a desired policy result?
In practice, the employers best positioned to survive the $100,000 H-1B fee are often the ones with the deepest pockets.
Large technology companies and major corporations typically have more resources, stronger legal teams, and greater flexibility to restructure hiring strategies. They may dislike the fee, but they are far better equipped to absorb or work around it.
The real pressure may fall on:
Startups
Small and midsize businesses
Employers with genuine talent needs but limited capital
International students and H-1B candidates who rely on smaller employers for sponsorship opportunities
That creates a difficult irony. A policy promoted as a crackdown on abuse may end up concentrating sponsorship power even more heavily in the hands of large employers, while squeezing out the very businesses that often create innovative and legitimate job opportunities.
So while the policy may reduce abuse in some corners of the system, its side effects could be much broader and more complicated than supporters originally expected.
For employers, international students, OPT workers, and H-1B candidates, the next few months could be pivotal.
On one side, the $100,000 fee has already changed behavior and likely reduced participation in the H-1B system. On the other, the legal challenge against it is gaining force, especially after the Supreme Court’s recent message that executive power to impose charges must rest on clear congressional authorization.
The biggest question now is not just whether H-1B registration numbers will drop. It is whether the courts will decide that this policy crossed a legal line.
If a preliminary injunction is issued this spring, the future of the $100,000 H-1B fee could change before the 2026 H-1B season is even fully underway.