On June 8, 2026, a historic summary judgment was entered, fully halting the $100,000 H-1B proclamation that has been in effect since September 21, 2025. The judgment provides immediate relief, recognizing the direct harm this proclamation causes our country’s most critical sectors, i.e., healthcare, education, and research. After eight long months, medical workers, teachers, professors, and scholars can finally obtain H-1B visas from abroad once again. But the Massachusetts district court did not stop there, as its decision vacated the proclamation in full, completely unconstitutional to all those impacted across all sectors.
In summary, while the President may have executive discretion over the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals as provided by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), his authority has constitutional limits, and the district court decided Trump overreached here by implementing what is substantively nothing other than an unlawful tax. As far as tax powers go, the President was not granted authority to tax by the INA, and therein lies the core of this decision. Taxing power is constitutionally congressional, and despite how broad the INA may be in the President’s discretionary power to exclude and limit the entry of foreign nationals, there is no way to conclude that some part of Congress’ strictly exclusive tax power was delegated to the President via the INA. Congress did not provide the President authorization to impose this tax. As such, the $100,000 proclamation is unconstitutional.
The MA district court further solidified relief based on Administrative Procedure Act (APA) violations as well. Not only did the President not have congressional approval to tax, but the $100,000 payment’s implementation as an agency action did not go through a notice-and-comment period. In noting this procedural APA violation, the district court found no emergent circumstances and no good cause for immediate implementation of the tax that would have allowed for an exception to the critical notice-and-comment requirement. Additionally, the agency’s action in implementing the rule was illegal because it is not required to carry out Presidential orders that stem from an unauthorized delegation of power (i.e., tax power). Now, it is hard to imagine Homeland Security and the Department of State not following the President’s orders, but the court here said that they were not obligated to do so and that such policy action was not legally permissible.
Importantly, the court found that the Chamber of Commerce decision that was issued in December 2025 allowing the proclamation to go on does not preclude relief to the plaintiffs here. Meaning that any institutions, hospitals, universities, research entities, private entities etc. that were party to the prior suit can benefit from this decision.
This decision is critical, but the government will most likely appeal and potentially stay the decision. Please reach out to our office for assistance in considering the risks of filing an H-1B for foreign beneficiaries abroad now in light of the fact that the government will likely appeal to stop this injunctive relief.
