NO BAN Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 4, 2025
Bottom line
The NO BAN Act aims to curb executive power in immigration by imposing strict limitations, congressional oversight, and judicial review on the President's ability to issue broad travel bans, while expanding anti-discrimination protections.
What it actually does
This bill, the NO BAN Act, amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to significantly restrict the President's authority to suspend or restrict the entry of classes of aliens. It transfers the initial determination power from the President to the Secretary of State (in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security), requires specific and credible facts, mandates narrow tailoring and least restrictive means, and introduces congressional consultation and reporting requirements with termination clauses for non-compliance. It also expands nondiscrimination provisions to include religion and apply to nonimmigrant visas and other immigration benefits, and establishes judicial review for those harmed by violations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill restores congressional authority over immigration policy, prevents discriminatory travel bans based on religion or national origin, and ensures due process and transparency in immigration decisions. They contend that broad, untailored bans are ineffective, harmful to families, and undermine American values, and that the bill provides necessary checks and balances on executive power.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill unduly ties the President's hands in matters of national security, potentially hindering the Executive Branch's ability to respond swiftly and decisively to emerging threats. They may contend that the existing authority is crucial for protecting the homeland and that the proposed limitations could endanger national security by making it harder to restrict entry from high-risk areas or groups.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Expansion of Nondiscrimination Provision
This section amends Section 202(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit discrimination based on religion (in addition to race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence) when considering immigrant visas, nonimmigrant visas, admission, other entry, or approval/revocation of any immigration benefit. It removes some existing exceptions and clarifies that discrimination is only permissible if expressly required by statute or if a statutorily authorized benefit specifically considers such factors.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential to prevent discriminatory policies, such as the 'Muslim ban,' by explicitly codifying protections against religious discrimination and extending them to all forms of entry and immigration benefits. They believe it aligns U.S. law with fundamental human rights principles.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that while the intent is good, the existing framework already provides sufficient protections, and adding 'religion' explicitly could open avenues for legal challenges that complicate national security screenings. They might also argue that certain national security considerations inherently involve assessing risks that could be misconstrued as religious discrimination.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for comprehensive anti-discrimination protections with potential concerns about the flexibility of national security screening processes.
Section 3
Transfer and Limitations on Authority to Suspend or Restrict Entry
This section significantly revises Section 212(f) of the INA. It transfers the initial determination for suspending or restricting entry from the President to the Secretary of State (in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security). It requires this determination to be based on 'specific and credible facts' that entry would undermine security, public safety, human rights, democratic processes, or international stability. The President can then temporarily suspend or restrict entry. Crucially, it imposes strict limitations: actions must address 'specific acts implicating a compelling government interest,' be 'narrowly tailored' using the 'least restrictive means,' specify duration, consider waivers (with a rebuttable presumption for family-based/humanitarian), and comply with all INA provisions.
Section 3(3)
Congressional Notification and Termination
This subsection mandates that before the President exercises the new authority, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security must consult Congress and provide specific evidence for the need and proposed duration of any suspension or restriction. Within 48 hours after the President acts, a briefing and written report must be submitted to specific congressional committees, detailing the action, its objective, estimated impact, legal authority, and compliance with limitations. Failure to provide this briefing and report within 48 hours results in immediate termination of the suspension or restriction.
Section 3(5)
Judicial Review
This subsection explicitly grants individuals or entities present in the United States who have been harmed by a violation of the new Section 212(f) the right to file an action in an appropriate U.S. district court to seek declaratory or injunctive relief. It also clarifies that such actions are not precluded from proceeding as a class action.
Section 4
Visa Applicants Report
This section requires the Secretary of State, in coordination with DHS and other agencies, to submit initial reports within 90 days of enactment on the implementation of past Presidential Proclamations (9645, 9822, 9983) and Executive Orders (13769, 13780, and 13815). These reports must include detailed data on visa applications, approvals, refusals, waivers granted/denied, and refugee admissions, disaggregated by country and visa category. Furthermore, for any future suspension or restriction under the amended 212(f), monthly reports with similar detailed data and evidence for continued need must be submitted to Congress. Failure to submit these monthly reports also results in immediate termination of the restriction. All reports must be publicly available online in unclassified form.
Requires the President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Homeland Security to 'consider waivers to any class-based restriction or suspension and apply a rebuttable presumption in favor of granting family-based and humanitarian waivers'.
Section 3(2)(D)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include specific operational details within a broader section outlining limitations. It's not necessarily evasive.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that even narrowly tailored restrictions do not unduly separate families or prevent humanitarian relief, providing a crucial safety valve and upholding humanitarian values.
Case against: Opponents might argue that a 'rebuttable presumption' in favor of waivers could weaken the effectiveness of a necessary restriction, creating loopholes that could be exploited or complicating the implementation of a ban.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for individuals with family ties or humanitarian needs who would otherwise be subject to a restriction, offering a pathway for entry.
Both sections include 'termination' clauses. Section 3(3)(C) states that if the required briefing and report are not provided to Congress within 48 hours of the President exercising authority, the suspension or restriction 'shall immediately terminate absent intervening congressional action.' Section 4(b) states that if the monthly additional reports are not provided, the suspension or restriction 'shall immediately terminate absent intervening congressional action.'
Section 3(3)(C) and Section 4(b)
Why it matters:This is a strong enforcement mechanism for congressional oversight, placed within the procedural sections. It's a deliberate legislative choice to ensure compliance.
Case for: Proponents argue these termination clauses are essential to give teeth to congressional oversight, ensuring the Executive Branch complies with transparency and reporting mandates. Without them, reporting requirements could be ignored.
Case against: Opponents might argue that automatic termination of a national security measure due to a reporting delay is an overly rigid and potentially dangerous consequence, risking national security for a procedural lapse.
Estimated impact: High, as it provides a powerful check on executive power and ensures accountability.