HR-2214-116
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 333.
Sponsored by Judy Chu (D-CA)
What it does
The NO BAN Act would limit the President's authority to suspend or restrict foreign nationals from entering the United States by requiring that any such restriction address a specific, credible threat to U.S. security or public safety, serve a compelling government interest, and use the least restrictive means available. It would require the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to consult with Congress before imposing a restriction and to report to Congress within 48 hours of doing so — or the restriction automatically terminates. The bill would also prohibit religious discrimination in visa decisions unless Congress has specifically authorized it, and would allow individuals or entities in the U.S. who are unlawfully harmed by a restriction to sue in federal court.
Who benefits
Foreign nationals from countries that have been or could be subject to presidential entry restrictions, particularly those from Muslim-majority countries affected by prior travel bans. U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents with family members abroad who could be barred from entry. U.S. businesses, universities, and other institutions that rely on foreign workers, students, or visitors. Religious minority groups who could face discriminatory visa denials. Civil liberties and immigration advocacy organizations that gain a new legal avenue to challenge restrictions in federal court.
Who is hurt
The executive branch would lose broad discretionary authority it currently holds under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to restrict entry. Presidential administrations of either party would face new procedural requirements and congressional oversight before acting. National security agencies may find rapid-response entry restrictions harder to implement if consultation and reporting requirements slow the process. Airlines that fail to comply with fraudulent-document detection regulations could face entry suspension consequences affecting their passengers and operations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the President's current authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) is written so broadly that it allows entry bans with virtually no judicial or congressional check, enabling discrimination based on religion or national origin with little accountability. They contend that the NO BAN Act restores the constitutional balance of powers by requiring the executive branch to demonstrate a specific, credible threat and to consult with Congress — the branch that wrote immigration law in the first place. Supporters also argue that blanket entry restrictions harm American families, businesses, and universities by separating them from foreign nationals who pose no individual threat, and that prohibiting religious discrimination in visa decisions aligns federal practice with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. They point to the Supreme Court's narrow 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) as evidence that the existing statute's lack of guardrails is a policy choice Congress can and should correct.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the President's broad authority to restrict entry is a cornerstone of national security and foreign policy, areas where the executive branch has unique expertise, intelligence access, and constitutional responsibility. They contend that requiring a "compelling interest" standard and "least restrictive means" — legal tests borrowed from civil rights law — would impose a judicial framework ill-suited to fast-moving security threats, potentially delaying urgent action by days or weeks. Opponents also argue that the 48-hour congressional reporting requirement, with automatic termination as a penalty for non-compliance, could allow a restriction to lapse during a genuine emergency due to bureaucratic delay rather than any policy failure. They further contend that the Supreme Court already upheld broad presidential entry restriction authority in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), and that Congress should not second-guess executive branch national security judgments that depend on classified information unavailable to the public or to courts.
Constitutional context
The bill directly engages Article I (Congress's plenary power over naturalization and immigration), Article II (the President's executive and foreign affairs powers), and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause (prohibition on government favoring or disfavoring religion). The key statutory backdrop is 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which grants the President broad authority to suspend entry of any class of aliens. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Supreme Court upheld the third version of the travel ban under § 1182(f), finding the President had broad discretion. The bill would impose a "compelling interest" and "least restrictive means" standard — a strict scrutiny framework — on that discretion. Arizona v. United States (2012) affirmed federal supremacy in immigration. DHS v. Regents (2020) addressed limits on executive discretion in immigration policy. Post-Loper Bright, courts would independently interpret the new statutory standards rather than deferring to agency readings.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority at the expense of the executive branch. The bill would replace the President's near-unilateral authority under § 1182(f) with a framework requiring pre-action consultation with Congress, a 48-hour post-action report to Congress (with automatic termination as a penalty for non-compliance), and judicial review via a private right of action in federal court. The judiciary would also gain a clearer statutory standard — compelling interest and least restrictive means — to apply when reviewing entry restrictions, reducing executive discretion that Trump v. Hawaii (2018) found nearly unreviewable under the current statute.
Historical precedent
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (§ 1182(f)) originally granted presidential entry restriction authority. Executive Order 13769 (2017) and its successors, upheld in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), are the direct policy context this bill responds to. The bill's "compelling interest/least restrictive means" framework mirrors standards used in civil rights and First Amendment law.