Limit Executive Travel Bans and Protect Visa Rights

Summary#

HR 924 (the NO BAN Act) would limit how and when a President can block groups of non‑citizens from entering the United States. It expands anti‑discrimination rules in immigration decisions and adds reporting and oversight for any future entry bans. The goal appears to be preventing broad or discriminatory bans while keeping tools for targeted, evidence‑based actions.

Key changes:

• Expands the existing ban on discrimination in immigrant visa issuance to also cover temporary visas, entry at the border, and other immigration benefits, and adds religion as a protected ground (with narrow exceptions required by other laws).
• Rewrites the President’s “entry ban” authority so it can be used only after cabinet‑level findings based on specific and credible facts, and only if the action is narrowly tailored, time‑limited, and the least restrictive means to meet a compelling government interest.
• Requires consultation with Congress before an entry ban, and a detailed public report within 48 hours; if the report is late, the ban ends unless Congress acts.
• Requires case‑by‑case waivers to be considered for any class‑based restriction, with a presumption in favor of family‑based and humanitarian waivers.
• Allows people and entities in the U.S. harmed by a violation of these rules to sue in federal court, including as a class action.
• Orders public reports on how past travel bans were implemented and ongoing updates if any new class‑based entry limits are used.

What it means for you#

• Travelers and visa applicants (immigrants and nonimmigrants)

  • The government could not deny visas, entry, or other immigration benefits because of your religion. Existing bars on discrimination by nationality, sex, race, place of birth, or residence would apply more broadly beyond immigrant visas, with limited exceptions required by statute.
  • If a future class‑based entry limit is imposed, it must be narrow, time‑limited, and based on specific facts. Agencies must consider waivers, with a tilt toward approving family‑based or humanitarian cases.

• U.S. citizens and residents with family abroad

  • In any future class‑based travel restriction, there would be a rebuttable presumption to grant family‑based waivers. This could make it easier to reunite with close relatives during a restriction, though waivers are not automatic.

• People and organizations in the U.S. affected by a restriction

  • If you are in the U.S. and are harmed by a violation of the new limits (for example, a ban imposed without required findings or reports), you may sue in federal court to stop it, including through a class action.

• Airlines

  • If an airline fails to follow Department of Homeland Security rules for detecting fraudulent travel documents (including staff training), DHS may suspend the entry of some or all passengers that airline transports to the U.S. This increases pressure on airlines to meet document screening rules.

• General public

  • There would be more transparency. The government must brief Congress and publish unclassified reports on the facts and scope of any class‑based entry limits. Initial public reports must also detail how past travel bans were carried out.

• Government agencies

  • The Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security must make the factual findings before a President can act under this authority, consult Congress, issue public reports on tight timelines, and consider waivers.

• Timing

  • Initial reports on past travel bans are due within 90 days of the bill becoming law. For any new class‑based entry action, a report is due within 48 hours and then every 30 days; missing a deadline ends the restriction unless Congress intervenes.

Expenses#

The bill may increase administrative and oversight costs, but no estimate is available.

• Added workload for State and Homeland Security to prepare consultations, 48‑hour reports, 30‑day updates, and public postings.
• Potential litigation costs for the government due to the new right to sue and possible class actions.
• Possible compliance costs for airlines to ensure staff training and document checks meet DHS requirements (existing duties are reinforced by a stronger penalty).

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to prevent broad or discriminatory bans, including those based on religion, by strengthening anti‑discrimination rules across visa, entry, and immigration benefit decisions.
• It could ensure any class‑based entry limits are evidence‑driven, time‑limited, and as narrow as possible, which may better align with national security needs while reducing harm to bystanders.
• Required consultations, rapid reporting to Congress, and public disclosure could improve transparency and accountability.
• A presumption for family‑based and humanitarian waivers could protect family unity and urgent humanitarian cases during any restriction.
• Allowing court review if the rules are violated could provide a check to make sure the Executive Branch follows the law.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the higher bar (“specific and credible facts,” “compelling interest,” and “least restrictive means”) could limit speed and flexibility to respond to fast‑moving threats.
• Required briefings and public reports, including ongoing 30‑day updates, may be operationally burdensome and could raise questions about handling sensitive intelligence in a timely way.
• The new right to sue, including class actions, may lead to more litigation that could delay or block executive actions during emergencies.
• A presumption in favor of family‑based and humanitarian waivers may be seen as too permissive by those who prefer tighter controls during security incidents.
• The automatic termination of a restriction if reports are late could disrupt ongoing security actions due to administrative delays rather than policy choices.