Muslim Travel Ban: Executive Orders Restricting Entry from Muslim-Majority Countries
Tier 1Revoked by Biden2017-01-27 to 2021-01-20
Factual Summary
On January 27, 2017, one week after taking office, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769, titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." The order suspended entry to the United States for nationals of seven majority-Muslim countries for 90 days: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It also suspended the refugee admissions program for 120 days and indefinitely suspended admission of Syrian refugees. The order took effect immediately, causing immediate chaos at airports where travelers and refugees who had been admitted under existing visas and approvals were detained or turned away.
**Campaign Context**
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump called in December 2015 for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." He reiterated versions of this position at campaign rallies throughout 2016. After the election, Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani stated publicly that Trump had called him and asked him how to do a Muslim ban legally. These public statements became central to litigation challenging the policy on Establishment Clause grounds.
**First Version and Court Challenges**
Federal district courts in Washington State and Hawaii issued immediate temporary restraining orders blocking enforcement of EO 13769 within days of its signing. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the restraining order in a 3-to-0 decision on February 9, 2017. The court cited the government's failure to offer evidence of a national security rationale sufficient to overcome due process and other legal concerns.
**Second Version**
On March 6, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13780, a revised version that removed Iraq from the list of restricted countries, exempted lawful permanent residents and existing visa holders, and eliminated the explicit indefinite suspension of Syrian refugees. Courts again blocked the revised order. The Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the block in a 10-to-3 decision in May 2017, ruling that the order violated the Establishment Clause based in part on Trump's public statements about his intent to restrict Muslim entry. The Ninth Circuit also upheld the block. The Supreme Court partially stayed the lower court injunctions in June 2017, permitting enforcement against travelers who lacked a "bona fide relationship" with a U.S. person or entity.
**Third Version and Supreme Court Ruling**
On September 24, 2017, Trump signed a third, more expansive version, Proclamation 9645, which applied travel restrictions to nationals of eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. Chad was later removed after cooperating with vetting requirements. The third version was again challenged, but in Trump v. Hawaii, decided June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the proclamation 5 to 4. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the proclamation fell within the president's broad statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict entry in the national interest and that courts could not look behind neutral statutory authority to examine campaign statements. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, dissented and compared the majority's reasoning to Korematsu v. United States, the 1944 decision upholding Japanese American internment. The majority opinion formally overruled Korematsu on other grounds.
**Revocation**
On January 20, 2021, his first day in office, President Biden signed a proclamation revoking the travel ban. The policy had been in effect, in successive versions, for the entirety of Trump's first term.
Primary Sources
1. Executive Order 13769, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," January 27, 2017: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/01/2017-02281/protecting-the-nation-from-foreign-terrorist-entry-into-the-united-states
2. Executive Order 13780, March 6, 2017: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/09/2017-04837/protecting-the-nation-from-foreign-terrorist-entry-into-the-united-states
3. Presidential Proclamation 9645, September 24, 2017: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/09/27/2017-20899/enhancing-vetting-capabilities-and-processes-for-detecting-attempted-entry-into-the-united-states
4. Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018), Supreme Court majority and dissenting opinions: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
5. Presidential Proclamation 10141, Ending Discriminatory Bans on Entry to the United States (Biden revocation), January 20, 2021: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01749/ending-discriminatory-bans-on-entry-to-the-united-states
Corroborating Sources
1. ACLU case page on the travel ban litigation: https://www.aclu.org/trump-administration-muslim-ban
2. Rudy Giuliani interview on Fox News, January 29, 2017, on Trump's request for a legal Muslim ban: https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/
3. Washington Post: "Federal judge in Seattle blocks Trump's travel ban," February 3, 2017: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-judge-in-seattle-blocks-trumps-travel-ban/2017/02/03/
4. NPR: "Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban," June 26, 2018: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/579012571/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban
5. New York Times: "Biden Ends Trump's Travel Bans on Muslim-Majority Countries," January 20, 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/us/politics/biden-muslim-ban.html
6. Fourth Circuit en banc opinion, International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 17-1351 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/17-1351/17-1351-2017-05-25.html
Counterarguments and Context
The Trump administration consistently argued that the travel restrictions were a lawful exercise of presidential authority over immigration and national security, citing 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which permits the president to suspend entry of any class of aliens whose entry would be detrimental to U.S. interests. The administration argued the restrictions were not targeted at religion but at countries that were unwilling or unable to provide adequate vetting information to U.S. authorities. The Supreme Court majority in Trump v. Hawaii accepted this framing, deferring to the executive's national security judgments. The administration also pointed to the statutory exemptions for existing visa holders, lawful permanent residents, and cases of individual hardship as evidence that the policy was not a blanket prohibition. Six countries on the final list were majority-Muslim, but North Korea and Venezuela were also included, which the government cited as evidence the policy was not religion-based.
Author's Note
This entry is classified as Tier 1 because the Supreme Court issued a final ruling on the merits in Trump v. Hawaii, upholding the third version of the proclamation, and because Biden's revocation on his first day resolved the policy. The entry documents the litigation history and the legal and factual record without taking a position on the ultimate constitutional question, which the Supreme Court resolved in the administration's favor. The Establishment Clause arguments that succeeded in lower courts were not reached by the 5-to-4 Supreme Court majority.