U.S COMMITTEE FOR REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS
  • LANGUAGE OPTIONS


Protecting the Promise of Travel in a Travel Ban Era

September 16, 2025

On June 4, 2025, the U.S. Government imposed a travel ban that impacted nationals from 19 countries. Proclamation 10949, “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” stated that the Executive Branch has authority to block the entry of noncitizens if he finds that entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

In every travel ban that has been issued by the Executive Branch, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) has been cited as the source of authority. The broad expanse of that authority was made clear in 2018, when the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Hawaii, a legal challenge against the September 24, 2017 travel ban targeting mostly Muslim-majority countries. In that case, the majority ruled that Section 1182(f) gave the President broad discretion to impose entry bans. However, it drew a clear distinction between entry bans and processing bans. This brief explains the distinction between entry bans and processing bans and describes how the two concepts have shaped the rights of noncitizens hoping to immigrate to the United States and litigation trying to vindicate those rights.

What is an Entry Ban?

Under Section 1182(f), the President can issue a proclamation suspending the entry of any non-citizen or any class of non-citizens if entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The entry ban can last for “such period” as deemed necessary. Section 1182(f) only refers to the President’s power to suspend and limit entry.

Section 1182(f) was included in the original text of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in 1952. In 1965, Congress added a non-discrimination clause to the INA at Section 1152(a)(1)(A), mandating that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

The text of Section 1152(a)(1)(A) explicitly references the issuance of visas and does not seem to mention entry at all. However, the issuance of visas, or visa processing, and entry have often been viewed in combination. In 2017, the Executive Branch issued Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States (February 1, 2017), and Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” (March 6, 2017). These executive orders implemented travel bans that suspended entry but also suspended the issuance of visas. In fact, the stated purpose of the entry ban in Executive Order 13769 was that the Executive Branch had concerns about visa-issuance processes for certain nationals.

When federal courts blocked implementation of Executive Order 13769, the Administration attempted to fix legal deficiencies by issuing Executive Order 13780. When the latter was also successfully challenged, the Administration issued Proclamation 9645, “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats” (September 27, 2017), which again imposed a travel ban based on Section 1182(f) authority. The Supreme Court decided on the expanse of that authority in Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018).

The majority in Trump v. Hawaii was clear. Five of the nine justices stated that Section 1182(f) grants the President “’ample power’ to impose entry restrictions.” Lower courts had repeatedly struck down versions of the travel ban, but the majority was satisfied that the President had provided a 12-page explanation of the national security interests behind the travel ban. The majority was also satisfied that the ban would be reviewed every 180 days, but also stated that the President did not need to set a fixed end date.

Click here to read the full brief.

 

USCRI, founded in 1911, is a non-governmental, not-for-profit international organization committed to working on behalf of refugees and immigrants and their transition to a dignified life.

For inquiries, please contact: [email protected]

 


Related Posts

Everything She Can Be: Honoring...

Author’s Note I have gained endless inspiration from the girls and young women I have met in communities across the...

READ FULL STORY

Afghanistan’s Earthquake is Man’s Disaster

This week, a 6.0 magnitude earthquake hit Afghanistan’s mountainous Kunar province, located along its eastern border with Pakistan. Two subsequent...

READ FULL STORY

Made in China: Forced Labor...

The plight of the Uyghur people, and members of other predominantly Muslim ethnic minority groups, in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous...

READ FULL STORY