The NO BAN Act amends two core parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It broadens the statutory nondiscrimination rule to cover nonimmigrant visas, admissions, revocations, and other immigration benefits and explicitly adds religion as a protected ground.
Separately, it rewrites INA §212(f) to limit when and how the President can suspend or restrict entry of a class of aliens.
The bill replaces open-ended executive authority with a procedure that requires determinations based on specific, credible facts; narrow tailoring to a compelling government interest; pre-exercise consultation with and written reporting to specified congressional committees; a presumption favoring family and humanitarian waivers; and express judicial review for people present in the United States. It also mandates public, disaggregated reporting about prior travel bans and ongoing suspensions.
At a Glance
What It Does
It expands the INA’s nondiscrimination provision to cover nonimmigrant visas and immigration benefits and adds religion as a protected class. It rewrites the 212(f) authority so suspensions require a Secretary-level determination, narrow tailoring, enumerated reporting to Congress within 48 hours, and explicit waiver and judicial-review procedures.
Who It Affects
State Department and DHS decision-making on visa and entry policy, presidential use of 212(f) powers, visa applicants from countries targeted by proclamations or suspensions, commercial airlines subject to DHS enforcement rules, and the congressional committees named for oversight.
Why It Matters
The bill converts long-standing executive discretion over entry bans into a process-driven power constrained by evidentiary and procedural requirements, increasing transparency and legal vulnerability for blanket country- or class-based restrictions while creating new operational and reporting duties for agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill’s first core move is statutory: it changes the immigration nondiscrimination clause so that it protects people applying for or holding immigrant visas, nonimmigrant visas, admissions, revocations, and other immigration benefits from actions based on protected characteristics, with religion explicitly added. The change narrows the current carve-outs by limiting exceptions to those expressly required by statute or to statutorily authorized benefits that legitimately consider specific factors.
The second, larger change restructures INA §212(f). Rather than leaving suspension authority broad, the bill makes the Secretary of State (in consultation with DHS) the fact-finder: suspensions or restrictions must rest on specific, credible facts showing entry would undermine security, public safety, human rights, democratic institutions, or international stability.
The President retains the power to temporarily suspend or restrict entry, but only after that interagency determination.When the Executive exercises a suspension, the statute imposes multiple procedural limits: the action must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest using the least restrictive means; its duration must be specified; agencies must consider waivers (with a rebuttable presumption in favor of family and humanitarian waivers); and the action must align with other provisions of the INA. The bill requires consultation with Congress before use, and it forces a substantive, unclassified report and briefing within 48 hours after action is taken.
If that report and briefing are not provided within the 48‑hour window, the suspension terminates automatically unless Congress intervenes.The NO BAN Act also adds enforceability and transparency mechanisms: it creates a private right to seek declaratory or injunctive relief in federal district court for persons present in the U.S. who are harmed by violations of the new requirements and explicitly allows class actions; it directs agencies to publish an unclassified report in the Federal Register; and it gives DHS authority to suspend admissions tied to a commercial airline’s failure to meet document-fraud detection regulations. Finally, the bill requires immediate and periodic reporting by the State Department—within 90 days on past proclamations and every 30 days during any active suspension—providing disaggregated counts (applicants, approvals, refusals and reasons, pending cases, waivers granted/denied, refugee admissions) and the specific evidence justifying continued restrictions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A) to add religion as a protected characteristic and to extend the nondiscrimination prohibition to nonimmigrant visas, admissions, revocations, and other immigration benefits.
Under the revised 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), the Secretary of State (consulting DHS) must base any suspension or restriction on specific, credible facts and the President may only impose temporary suspensions that are narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.
Congressional oversight is mandatory: agencies must consult Congress before exercising 212(f) authority and deliver an unclassified briefing and written report within 48 hours; absent that report the suspension immediately ends unless Congress acts.
The statute requires agencies to consider waivers for affected classes and creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of family-based and humanitarian waivers, shifting the default toward individualized relief.
The Act creates a private right of action for persons present in the United States harmed by violations of the subsection and allows such suits to proceed as class actions, increasing judicial oversight of entry suspensions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expand nondiscrimination to visas, benefits, and religion
This amendment removes prior text that permitted various exceptions and inserts two key changes: it expressly adds religion to the list of protected categories and extends protection beyond immigrant visas to nonimmigrant visas, admission decisions, revocations, and the approval or revocation of any immigration benefit. Practically, adjudicators and consular officers will need to treat covered decisions as subject to nondiscrimination scrutiny unless a specific statutory exception applies or a benefit statute legitimately uses certain factors.
Fact-based interagency determination required before any suspension
The bill reallocates the decision-making chain: the Secretary of State, after consulting DHS, must determine—based on specific and credible facts—that entry of a specified alien or class would undermine enumerated national interests. That factual determination is the legal predicate for the President’s temporary suspend-or-restrict action, shifting the emphasis from unilateral presidential declaration to a Secretary-level factual showing.
Substantive limits: compelling interest, narrow tailoring, duration, and waivers
This section imposes substantive tests on any suspension: it must be necessary to address a specific act implicating a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored with least-restrictive means, include a stated duration, and consider waivers—applying a rebuttable presumption favoring family and humanitarian waivers. Agencies must also ensure the action complies with other INA provisions, which creates multiple statutory guardrails on blanket actions.
Mandatory congressional consultation, 48‑hour report, and public disclosure
Before invoking a suspension, the bill requires consultation with the enumerated congressional committees and submission of specific evidence and a proposed duration. Within 48 hours of exercising authority, the Secretaries must brief Congress and file a written unclassified report describing the action, affected numbers, legal authority, and supporting intelligence; the report must be published in the Federal Register. Failure to produce the briefing and report within 48 hours automatically terminates the suspension unless Congress acts, creating a strict procedural deadline for otherwise rapid executive responses.
Judicial review, class actions, and airline accountability
The Act authorizes individuals present in the United States who are harmed by violations of the subsection to sue for declaratory or injunctive relief in federal court and permits class actions. Separately, DHS may suspend entry of aliens transported by a commercial airline if DHS finds the airline failed to follow document-fraud detection regulations, tying enforcement to carrier compliance.
Visa-applicant reporting: retrospective and ongoing disaggregated data
Section 4 imposes reporting obligations on State (with DHS and other agencies): within 90 days produce a public, unclassified report on prior proclamations and executive orders specified in the text, and include country- and visa-category disaggregations for applicants, approvals, refusals (and reasons), pending cases, waiver outcomes, and refugee admissions for Proclamations 9645 and 9983. During any active suspension under the amended 212(f), State must report every 30 days with the same disaggregated counts plus the specific evidence justifying continuation; failure to deliver these reports terminates the suspension.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Visa applicants from targeted countries — Gain statutory protections covering nonimmigrant visas and immigration benefits and a statutory presumption favoring family and humanitarian waivers, improving their prospects for individualized relief.
- Family members and humanitarian cases — Receive a rebuttable presumption in their favor during waiver consideration, making it easier to secure exceptions to class-based restrictions.
- Civil-rights and immigration legal practitioners and advocacy groups — Secure a clearer statutory standard to challenge discriminatory or overbroad bans and access to unclassified, disaggregated data useful for litigation and policy work.
- Congressional oversight committees — Receive mandated consultations, timely briefings, and public reports that enhance oversight capacity and factual grounding for legislative responses.
- Refugee and refugee-admissions advocates — Benefit from required reporting of refugee admissions by country and increased transparency about how proclamations affected refugee flows.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of State and DHS — Face substantial new evidentiary, coordination, and reporting workloads: interagency determinations, rapid 48‑hour reports, monthly follow-ups, and public data compilation will require staff time and likely new processes.
- The Executive Branch (President’s rapid-response capacity) — Loses broad unilateral discretion; the 48‑hour reporting and congressional consultation requirements constrain the ability to invoke immediate, secretive measures.
- Commercial airlines — Risk suspension of passengers’ entry tied to airline compliance with DHS document-fraud detection rules, creating training, compliance, and potential operational liability costs.
- Federal Judiciary and legal defenders — Anticipate increased litigation as individuals present in the U.S. can seek immediate judicial relief and class actions become available, generating docket pressure and government defense costs.
- Foreign nationals from countries subject to restrictions — Even with new protections, they still may experience delayed processing and uncertainty while agencies validate facts and consider waivers, imposing real short-term costs on affected people and sponsor organizations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic trade-off: it aims to eliminate discriminatory, broad country-based bans by imposing transparency, evidentiary, and waiver safeguards, but those same safeguards limit the Executive’s speed and secrecy in responding to genuine threats—forcing a choice between safeguarded civil liberties and the agility to protect national security in urgent situations.
The bill trades broad executive flexibility for procedural and evidentiary constraints that are straightforward on paper but complex in practice. 'Specific and credible facts' and a finding that entry would undermine ‘‘human rights, democratic processes or institutions, or international stability’’ are fact-intensive standards that will require classified intelligence and interagency legal analysis; declassifying enough information to meet the public-reporting requirement without revealing sources and methods will be difficult. The 48‑hour briefing and unclassified report deadline places a practical premium on rapid collection, redaction, and legal review; delays in that process automatically terminate suspensions, potentially undercutting responses to fast-moving crises.
The waiver regime and the rebuttable presumption for family and humanitarian cases tilt outcomes toward individualized relief but create administrative burdens and new litigation friction over waiver scope and proof. Allowing individuals present in the United States to sue and permitting class actions increases judicial scrutiny but also opens the door to multiple, overlapping suits that may freeze policy while courts resolve constitutional and statutory questions.
Finally, tying airline accountability to suspension risk raises novel regulatory enforcement questions about what constitutes adequate training and how DHS will measure compliance in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.