Status as of October 7, 2026. A federal judge in Northern California has vacated and enjoined agency policies implementing the $100,000 payment requirement for certain H-1B petitions. The September 30 order in Global Nurse Force v. Trump is the second federal ruling blocking implementation. The presidential proclamation itself was not enjoined, and litigation continues.
U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. granted preliminary relief to employers and organizations challenging the way federal agencies implemented the $100,000 H-1B payment. The ruling prevents the agencies from enforcing the challenged implementation policies unless the legal defect identified by the court is addressed.
What the California court ordered
The case is Global Nurse Force v. Trump, No. 4:25-cv-08454-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 30, Judge Gilliam granted the plaintiffs' preliminary-injunction motion in part.
The court vacated the agency policies that implemented the payment requirement and enjoined the agencies from enforcing or implementing those policies. The ruling covers implementation associated with the original presidential proclamation and its September 2026 extension.
The court also denied the government's motion to dismiss. It denied class certification without prejudice, concluding that class treatment was not necessary for the requested preliminary relief.
The ruling focuses on agency implementation
The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the agencies used legislative rules to implement the $100,000 payment without the notice-and-comment process required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court also faulted the agencies' consideration of alternatives and reliance interests in the implementation process.
The order does not say that the President's proclamation itself is invalid. It targets the federal agency policies used to carry the payment requirement into operation.
This is the second federal ruling against the implementation
A federal court in Massachusetts had already set aside the agency guidance implementing the $100,000 payment in June 2026. The government sought a stay while appealing, but the First Circuit denied that request in July.
The California ruling provides a separate basis for blocking the implementation policies. As of October 7, the payment is not being enforced through the challenged agency policies.
Why the distinction matters
There is a legal difference between a court setting aside agency implementation documents and a court invalidating the underlying presidential proclamation. The current practical result is that the agencies cannot collect the payment under the policies that the courts have set aside, but the broader litigation over presidential and agency authority is not finished.
Factum Immigration's H-1B Visa guide tracks the current H-1B framework and related policy changes.
Frequently asked questions
Is the $100,000 H-1B payment currently being enforced?
No. The agency policies implementing the $100,000 payment have been set aside, and DHS has said it will comply with the earlier Massachusetts order while litigation continues.
Did the California court invalidate the presidential proclamation itself?
No. The September 30 order vacated and enjoined the agency implementation policies; it did not enjoin the presidential proclamation itself.
Is the H-1B litigation over?
No. The California case continues, and the government has also been litigating the separate Massachusetts ruling that set aside the same implementation framework.
Official sources
Disclaimer: Factum Immigration provides general information, not legal advice. For guidance on an individual case, consult a licensed immigration attorney.