HR-9457-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security from suspending or pausing the Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) program on a program-wide basis without explicit statutory authorization. It would allow limited exceptions: country-specific or regional suspensions with 7-day advance notice to Congress, case-by-case denials based on individual security or eligibility reviews, and temporary program-wide suspensions of no more than 60 days with automatic resumption. It would also require public disclosure of any suspension rationale in the Federal Register and protect already-selected visa holders from losing eligibility during a permitted short-term pause.
Who benefits
Foreign nationals selected in the annual DV lottery (approximately 55,000 visa slots per year) who would gain protection against losing their visa opportunity due to broad administrative pauses. Nationals from countries with historically low immigration rates to the U.S. who rely on the DV program as their primary legal immigration pathway. Immigration attorneys and advocacy organizations that assist DV applicants. Congressional committees that would gain new oversight and notification rights. Countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, and Oceania, which are the largest sources of DV selectees.
Who is hurt
The executive branch — specifically the State Department and DHS — would lose flexibility to pause the program quickly in response to emerging threats without congressional notification. National security agencies that may prefer operational discretion over mandatory disclosure timelines. Countries currently ineligible for the DV program (such as Mexico, India, China, and the Philippines, which are excluded due to high existing immigration levels) are unaffected and receive no new benefit. Taxpayers and agencies that would bear administrative costs of new reporting and Federal Register publication requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the DV program is a congressionally created statute and that the executive branch has no inherent authority to suspend it wholesale — a position reinforced by the Supreme Court's ruling in DHS v. Regents (2020), which found that broad administrative actions affecting congressionally authorized programs must follow proper legal procedures. They contend that national security screening already occurs before visa issuance and can be strengthened on a targeted basis without canceling tens of thousands of lawfully earned visa opportunities, and that transparency requirements protect against opaque, indefinite pauses that leave selectees in legal limbo.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the President holds broad statutory authority under INA §1182(f) to suspend entry of any class of aliens when deemed detrimental to national interests — authority the Supreme Court upheld in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) — and that this bill would unconstitutionally constrain that executive power. They contend that mandatory 7-day advance notice and public Federal Register disclosure of suspension rationales could compromise time-sensitive national security operations by telegraphing threat assessments to adversaries, and that Congress should not micromanage the executive's ability to respond rapidly to evolving foreign policy or security conditions.
Constitutional context
The Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) gives Congress authority over immigration law, including the DV program it created. However, Trump v. Hawaii (2018) affirmed broad presidential discretion under INA §1182(f) to restrict entry, and the tension between that executive authority and this bill's restrictions is the central constitutional question. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts would independently assess whether INA §1182(f) actually authorizes program-wide suspension of a congressionally mandated visa category, rather than deferring to the executive's interpretation.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority by restricting executive suspension power and requiring advance notification; the executive branch loses unilateral flexibility, though it retains country-specific and case-by-case discretion; courts would serve as the ultimate arbiter of whether the bill's limits on INA §1182(f) authority are constitutional.
Historical precedent
Executive orders in 2017 and 2020 suspended or restricted various visa categories, including diversity visas, and were challenged in courts; Trump v. Hawaii (2018) upheld broad presidential entry restriction authority under INA §1182(f), which this bill directly seeks to limit for the DV program specifically.