NO BAN Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 4, 2025
Bottom line
The NO BAN Act aims to curb presidential power in immigration matters by requiring specific justifications, narrow tailoring, and congressional oversight for any class-based entry restrictions, while expanding nondiscrimination protections.
What it actually does
This bill, known as 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 expands nondiscrimination provisions to include religion and nonimmigrant visas, requiring any suspension to be narrowly tailored, temporary, and based on specific, credible facts related to national security, public safety, human rights, democratic processes, or international stability. It also mandates congressional consultation and reporting, and establishes judicial review for those harmed by violations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill restores congressional authority over immigration policy, prevents discriminatory bans based on religion or national origin, and ensures that any necessary entry restrictions are based on credible threats rather than broad, arbitrary decrees. They emphasize the importance of due process and humanitarian considerations, asserting that the bill protects fundamental American values of openness and fairness.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill unduly ties the President's hands in responding swiftly to evolving national security threats, potentially jeopardizing public safety by adding bureaucratic hurdles and limiting executive discretion. They may contend that the President needs broad authority to protect the nation's borders and citizens, and that the proposed limitations could be exploited by adversaries.
The bill is relatively short and its core changes are clearly articulated, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Titles
This section establishes two short titles for the Act: the "National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act" and the "NO BAN Act." These titles clearly communicate the bill's primary intent to prevent discrimination and restrict broad executive bans.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that clear and concise short titles help in public understanding and legislative branding, making the bill's intent immediately recognizable.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, as they are administrative.
Tradeoffs
None significant for this provision.
Section 2
Expansion of Nondiscrimination Provision
This section amends Section 202(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It removes existing exceptions, inserts "or a nonimmigrant visa, admission or other entry into the United States, or the approval or revocation of any immigration benefit" after "immigrant visa," and adds "religion," after "sex," as a protected characteristic. It also adds a new clause allowing for exceptions if "expressly required by statute, or if a statutorily authorized benefit takes into consideration such factors." This significantly broadens the scope of nondiscrimination protections to cover nonimmigrants and explicitly includes religion.
Section 3
Limitations on Presidential Authority for Entry Restrictions
This section rewrites Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which previously granted broad presidential authority to suspend entry. The new language transfers the initial determination power to the Secretary of State (in consultation with DHS Secretary), requiring "specific and credible facts" that entry would undermine security, public safety, human rights, democratic processes, or international stability. It imposes strict limitations, requiring suspensions to be narrowly tailored, use the least restrictive means, specify duration, and consider family-based and humanitarian waivers with a rebuttable presumption in favor of granting them.
Section 3, amending 212(f)(3)
Congressional Oversight and Automatic Termination
This provision mandates that before the President can exercise authority to suspend entry, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security must consult with Congress and provide specific evidence. Within 48 hours of any action, 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 report within 48 hours results in immediate termination of the suspension or restriction.
Section 3, amending 212(f)(5)
Judicial Review for Harmed Individuals
This provision 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
Reporting Requirements on Past and Future Visa Restrictions
This section mandates initial reports within 90 days on the implementation of past Presidential Proclamations (9645, 9822, 9983) and Executive Orders (13769, 13780, 13815), including detailed visa application data disaggregated by country and category, approvals, denials, waivers, and refugee admissions. It also requires additional reports every 30 days for any future suspensions or restrictions under the new 212(f), providing updated data and evidence for continued need. Failure to submit these ongoing reports results in immediate termination of the suspension. All reports must be publicly available online.
Defines "Congress" for the purpose of congressional notification and reporting requirements to specifically include the intelligence, foreign relations, judiciary, and homeland security committees of both the Senate and House.
Section 3, amending 212(f)(3)(D)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define terms for procedural clarity. It ensures that the relevant committees with oversight jurisdiction are the ones receiving the information.
Case for: Supporters would argue that specifying the committees ensures that the most relevant and knowledgeable members of Congress are informed, allowing for effective oversight without overwhelming the entire legislative body.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against precise definitions in legislative text, as they are necessary for clarity.
Estimated impact: Ensures targeted communication within Congress, impacting the flow of information and oversight capacity.