Court Blocks $100,000 Fee as Alaska Districts Seek Affordable H-1B Visas for Teachers

(ALASKA) — A federal judge blocked the $100, 000 fee for new H-1B visa petitions on June 8, 2026, holding that the charge functioned as an unauthorized tax and was imposed in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The order applies nationwide and bars USCIS from collecting the fee immediately, giving employers, including Alaska districts that depend on foreign teachers, a legal basis to file without the added charge while the case moves toward appeal.

The ruling came in State of California et al. v. Markwayne Mullin et al., decided by U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin in the District of Massachusetts. This is not a BIA or AAO precedent decision such as Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016); it is a federal district court ruling. Its reach is still significant because the injunction is nationwide, and USCIS must follow it unless a higher court issues a stay.

Judge Sorokin’s core holding was straightforward. The executive branch may suspend or restrict entry under INA § 212(f), but it may not create a massive new filing charge that Congress did not authorize. The court treated the fee as a tax in substance, not a routine processing fee. That distinction mattered because Congress, not the President or DHS, controls federal taxation and user-fee authority.

The court also found an APA problem. The policy took effect without notice-and-comment rulemaking, and the judge found the measure arbitrary and capricious. In immigration litigation, those terms carry specific meaning. An agency must explain its reasoning, consider reliance interests, and act within statutory limits. The opinion concluded the administration had not done that.

The size of the increase sharpened the court’s analysis. Before the proclamation, standard H-1B filing costs generally ranged from $960 to $7,595, depending on employer size and case posture. The new $100, 000 fee was nearly a 2,000 percent jump for many filings. That gap undercut any claim that the charge was simply another administrative fee attached to ordinary petition processing.

The policy traced back to Presidential Proclamation 10973, issued on September 19, 2025. The proclamation described the H-1B program as a vehicle used to replace U.S. workers. DHS defended the measure after the ruling, calling the decision judicial activism. The White House said it expects reversal on appeal and described the charge as a lawful penalty designed to push employers toward U.S. hiring.

That appellate posture matters for employers filing now. A nationwide injunction remains in force today, but the administration can seek an emergency stay while appealing, reportedly to the D.C. Circuit. If a stay is granted, USCIS could resume collecting the fee during the appeal. Employers with near-term staffing needs may want counsel to assess filing timing, preservation of claims, and whether any emergency motion changes agency practice.

The practical effect is unusually sharp in Alaska. Rural schools across the state have long relied on foreign teachers because local recruitment has not filled vacancies. Public reporting cited in the case debate placed the number of international educators in Alaska at roughly 570 to 600. In some remote districts, international hires reportedly make up 50% to 80% of teaching staff. A sudden six-figure filing charge was not a marginal cost. It threatened basic staffing.

Alaska districts raised the problem early. Senator Lisa Murkowski and state lawmakers pressed for an exemption, and Murkowski introduced legislation in March 2026 that would have carved out public schools. Her office argued the fee was impossible for districts and individual teachers to absorb. That local record helps explain why this case has drawn so much attention outside the usual H-1B employer base in technology and healthcare.

Even with the injunction, some damage may already be locked in for the 2026–2027 school year. Teacher recruitment for remote Alaska communities typically closes in late spring. Districts that canceled overseas recruitment trips or delayed offers because of the fee may not be able to rebuild candidate pipelines in June. Court relief can remove a legal barrier; it does not automatically restore a missed hiring cycle.

The record also leaves one financial issue unresolved. The court did not address refunds for employers that already paid the charge. Public reporting said about 85 payments had been made by March 2026. Refund rights may turn on later court orders, agency guidance, appropriations law, and how USCIS booked those funds. Employers that paid should preserve receipts, filing notices, and correspondence while waiting for formal instructions.

The decision may also affect adjacent education-sector cases involving foreign nationals who are not yet in H-1B status. Some schools recruit recent graduates working in F-1 Optional Practical Training before seeking H-1B classification. This ruling does not alter F-1 rules, STEM OPT requirements, or cap-subject eligibility. It does, however, remove a major cost barrier that may have discouraged schools from moving eligible educators from student-based work authorization into H-1B status.

There is no developed circuit split yet on this exact proclamation because the policy is recent. Still, the case fits within a larger line of immigration litigation where courts test the limits of executive power under INA § 212(f) against statutory schemes Congress created elsewhere in the INA. If the appeal proceeds, the government will likely argue that the fee was part of a lawful entry restriction. The challengers will likely continue to argue that a six-figure charge is a revenue measure Congress never approved.

Employers should separate three questions that often get blurred in public debate. First, whether a teacher qualifies for H-1B classification under the INA. Second, whether the petition is cap-subject or cap-exempt. Third, what fees USCIS may legally collect. This case concerns the third question. It does not change specialty occupation standards, labor condition application rules, or basic petition evidence.

Schools and workers also need to watch jurisdiction. A nationwide injunction binds USCIS operationally, but appellate review can narrow or suspend relief. Employers in Alaska districts should expect shifting agency guidance if the government seeks emergency relief. Counsel may also advise on whether alternative classifications, deferred start strategies, or bridge planning are available where the H-1B timeline is already compressed.

Official updates are most likely to appear in the Newsroom and the agency’s FAQ. Employers and educators who may be affected should also keep an eye on court filings and obtain case-specific legal advice before filing, withdrawing, or reworking petitions. In Alaska, where staffing gaps can leave classrooms uncovered, timing may matter as much as the merits.

⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.

Legal resources: Lawyer Referral | Immigration Advocates Network