1st Cir.

State of California v. Markwayne Mullin

July 24, 2026 ·26-1699 ·Panel Decision · By Raj Patel

The First Circuit denied a motion to stay a district court order that vacated a presidential proclamation requiring a one hundred thousand dollar payment for H-1B visa petitions. The appellate court found the government failed to make a strong showing that it would likely succeed on the merits of its appeal.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:20

Background

The President issued a proclamation requiring a one hundred thousand dollar payment to accompany all H-1B visa petitions. Twenty states sued, arguing the requirement violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded statutory authority. The district court granted summary judgment for the states and vacated the policy. The government sought a stay pending appeal to this Court.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the four-factor test from Nken v. Holder to evaluate the stay motion. The court focused on the first factor, requiring a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits. The court concluded the government failed to show that Congress clearly delegated authority to impose a one hundred thousand dollar payment under sections one thousand one hundred eighty-two and one thousand one hundred eighty-five of title eight of the United States Code. The court noted that Congress typically specifies fee collection and usage explicitly when imposing financial burdens, which was absent here. The court also rejected the government’s argument that the policy was not final agency action, citing precedent that agency implementation of presidential directives is reviewable.

What it means going forward

The district court’s order vacating the one hundred thousand dollar H-1B payment requirement remains in effect while the government pursues its appeal.