In a decision published Monday, October 5, immigration law firm Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners highlighted a fresh preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that halts enforcement of the Trump administration’s eye-watering $100,000 surcharge on new H-1B petitions. Judge Haywood Gilliam found plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that agencies skipped mandatory notice-and-comment rule-making under the Administrative Procedure Act. The injunction is narrow but significant. It bars U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Customs and Border Protection from collecting or enforcing the fee until proper rule-making occurs. The ruling does not affect a separate proposal to raise regular H-1B fees to $103,265, but it delivers immediate relief to employers preparing petitions for the FY 2028 cap season. For business, the stakes are huge. Talent-hungry tech firms feared the surcharge would price them out of global recruitment, while universities and hospitals warned of cascading labour shortages. Economic modelling by the National Foundation for American Policy estimated the fee would cut new H-1B filings by 58 percent and cost U.S. firms $7 billion annually. The Trump-Vance administration is expected to appeal, and observers predict the issue could reach the Supreme Court alongside the broader immigration docket already scheduled this term. In the meantime, counsel advise companies to file H-1B petitions under the pre-existing fee schedule, keep documentation of mailing dates, and set aside funds in case the surcharge is reinstated retroactively. The episode underscores a broader pattern: aggressive immigration policies announced via proclamation are increasingly being checked by the federal courts. Mobility managers should monitor litigation closely, because today’s reprieve could become tomorrow’s compliance emergency.
Source: Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC
