In early June, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island issued rulings in two important immigration cases dealing with significant immigration-related policies promulgated by the current administration.
US Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) policies and the presidential travel ban
In Dorcas International et. al. vs USCIS et. al., the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated four USCIS policies that had suspended review of immigration benefit requests for individuals from 39 countries that President Trump included in his presidential travel ban. The ruling could allow associated benefit requests that are now before the Department of Homeland Security— including green cards and employment authorization requests — to proceed. It all depends on what happens next.
In the June 5 decision, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. concluded that USCIS lacked the statutory authority to implement the challenged policies and found them unlawful under the Administrative Procedures Act. The four USCIS policies ruled illegal were:
• Pausing adjudication of immigration benefit requests filed by nationals of the affected countries
• Pausing asylum and withholding adjudications
• Requiring an additional review of certain previously approved immigration benefits
• Directing officers to treat certain country-specific factors as significant negative discretionary considerations in adjudications
The court also issued declaratory relief in favor of the plaintiffs but did not enter a permanent injunction.
How will USCIS respond? The court decision means that the hold on adjudications for nationals of the 39 countries subject to the travel ban, as well as the global asylum hold, is no longer in effect. The government is expected to launch an appeal or seek a stay of the court’s decision, either of which could delay or alter the ruling’s impact.
The $100,000 H-1B visa fee
In State of California et. al. v. Markwayne Mullin et. al. the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts struck down the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy implementing Presidential Proclamation 10973. Issued in September 2025, Proclamation 10973 dramatically increased the fee for obtaining new H-1B visas, from the standard $2,000–$5,000 to $100,000.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled in favor of the 20 state attorneys general who had filed the action and said that the September 2025 proclamation imposed an unlawful $100,000 supplemental tax on certain new H-1B petitions. The court also found that USCIS, not the President, created the $100,000 payment obligation and was therefore subject to legislative rules under the Administrative Procedures Act (i.e., providing for a public notice and a comment period).
While the $100,000 fee has been struck down and the decision bars the government from collecting it, further litigation is expected. The government may seek a stay of vacatur pending appeal, which would place the $100,000 fee on hold until the appeal is settled.
The Court’s order vacates the policy but does not address refunds. Are employers who previously paid the $100,000 fee entitled to a refund?
It’s also important to note that in late December 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia reached the opposite conclusion on this issue, upholding the legality of the $100,000 fee. In Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell determined that the Administration’s imposition of the $100,000 fee was within the broad power Congress delegated to the executive branch to restrict entry of noncitizens into the United States.
While Judge Howell’s decision is not binding on other courts, it demonstrates that this question is not yet resolved and may remain unresolved until an appellate court or the Supreme Court provides an answer.
USCIS and the State Department have not yet provided guidance that addresses the effect of this ruling on pending and future H-1B filings. We expect that to be forthcoming. In the meantime, employers are advised to “wait and see” how USCIS and the State Department respond to this ruling before making any decisions that may depend on it.
Employers seeking global talent can remain hopeful, but should be cautious
While these significant federal court decisions are “good news” for employers orchestrating a global talent recruitment strategy and managing an H-1B workforce, their ultimate impact remains unclear. Until guidance is provided and litigation plays itself out, employers are advised to be cautious. In the meantime, it could be very helpful to meet with immigration counsel to review the status of pending applications and decide what cases, if any, warrant a modification of strategy based on these decisions.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns about how emerging immigration regulations, policies, and court decisions will impact your global workforce development and recruitment strategies, merger and acquisition plans, or any other workforce or business development matters, don’t hesitate to contact Orr & Reno for assistance.
