‼️ FEDERAL COURT UPDATE‼️
Federal District Courts in Rhode Island and Massachusetts issued final rulings on two significant issues effecting immigrants and their employers.
__________________________________________________________________________________
On Friday, June 5, 2026, the Federal District Court for Rhode Island in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island vs. USCIS set aside and declared unlawful USCIS’s January 1, 2026 policy of withholding review of petitions and applications involving individuals whose country of birth or country of citizenship is among the 39 countries subject to a partial or complete travel ban.
The Court noted that “the rule of law has to apply to everyone equally and, as evident here, USCIS has neither ‘followed the law’ nor ‘done things the right way.’” The Court found the USCIS’s policy was contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act, was arbitrary and capricious, and set aside and vacated the policy in its entirety. USCIS must now resume adjudicating petitions and applications for affected foreign nationals and their employers.
__________________________________________________________________________________
On Monday, June 8, 2026 the Federal District Court for Massachusetts in a lawsuit brought by the State of California, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and 18 other states, set aside and declared unlawful the September 19, 2025 Presidential Proclamation which instituted a $100,000 additional filing fee requirement for employers filing H-1B petitions for persons outside the U.S., petitions requesting consular processing even if the sponsored individual held prior H-1B status/visas, or petitions converted to consular processing due to failure to maintain status.
The Court held that the $100,000 payment requirement “improperly levies a tax on H-1B petitions” without Congressional authorization. In addition, the Court found that the Department of Homeland Security’s implementation of the Proclamation violated the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to “offer a reasoned explanation for enacting a heavy tax on the H-1B program” and failed to “provide any explanation for imposing a tax on employers in [the education or health care sector], let alone address these employers’ reliance interests on the H-1B program as it existed before the Policy.” Like the Court in Rhode Island, the $100,000 payment requirement has been set aside and vacated in its entirety.
These rulings are of major significance and likely will be appealed by the Government. Until a higher court stays these rulings, USCIS must adhere to each Court’s vacatur and judgment.