Reading mode Exit reading mode

Muslim Travel Ban: Executive Orders 13769, 13780, and Presidential Proclamation 9645

Trump signed an initial travel ban on January 27, 2017, halting entry from seven Muslim-majority countries and suspending the refugee program. After courts blocked it, the administration issued revised versions that scaled back explicit language while preserving the core country-specific restrictions. The Supreme Court allowed a third version to take full effect in December 2017.

Record summary

Grade

Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

Systematic actions that undermine fundamental constitutional or international legal protections at the structural level. Scale and definitions

Status
Concluded
Incident date
Record updated
Location
Washington, DC
Category
Civil Rights
Legal posture
Judicial finding
War-crime classification
Potential
Verification
Independently verified
ICC relevance
No
Sources
5 cited
Stable ID
muslim-ban-executive-order

Key points

  • EO 13769 (Jan 27, 2017) barred nationals from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days and suspended all refugee admissions for 120 days
  • Chaos at airports led to mass detentions of legal residents and visa holders; courts issued emergency stays within days
  • Revised EO 13780 (March 6, 2017) removed Iraq and dropped language explicitly privileging Christians
  • Presidential Proclamation 9645 (September 24, 2017) added Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela while removing Sudan; courts allowed this version to take full effect
  • Supreme Court upheld the third version 5-4 in Trump v. Hawaii (June 2018), with Chief Justice Roberts citing presidential deference on national security
  • Biden revoked all three bans on his first day in office, January 20, 2021

Overview

On January 27, 2017 — one week into his first term — President Trump signed Executive Order 13769, titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." The order immediately suspended entry of nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It also suspended the entire U.S. refugee admissions program for 120 days and indefinitely barred Syrian refugees.

The order went into effect without notice to federal agencies, airlines, or visa holders in transit. Within hours, foreign nationals — including lawful permanent residents — were detained at airports across the country. Courts issued emergency stays over the following days.

The Three Versions

The administration issued three iterations of the travel restriction, each designed to address judicial objections while preserving the core country-specific bar:

EO 13769 (January 27, 2017) was the broadest, covering seven countries and including a preference for religious minorities (widely understood as favoring Christians). Courts blocked it almost immediately on due process and establishment clause grounds.

EO 13780 (March 6, 2017) removed Iraq, eliminated the religious preference language, and narrowed the scope to foreign nationals without existing U.S. ties. Courts again blocked it, with courts finding that Trump's own campaign statements — calling for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" — showed religious animus underlying the facially neutral language.

Presidential Proclamation 9645 (September 24, 2017) framed the restrictions as responses to specific countries' failure to meet information-sharing standards. It added Chad, North Korea, and Venezuelan government officials. The Supreme Court allowed this version to take full effect in December 2017 and upheld it 5-4 in Trump v. Hawaii (2018).

The bans collectively stranded thousands of refugees approved for resettlement, separated families, and blocked students, researchers, and workers with valid visas. Pew Research estimated that the number of Muslim refugees admitted to the U.S. fell by roughly 91% between fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2018.

In dissent in Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the majority's reasoning was indistinguishable from the logic that produced Korematsu v. United States — the discredited 1944 ruling upholding Japanese American internment. Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion formally repudiated Korematsu while reaching a result Sotomayor argued was functionally equivalent.

International Law Concerns

The refugee ban violated the spirit of the United States' obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion in the grant of refugee protection. The blanket suspension of refugee admissions — including for persons whose protection claims had already been determined — was inconsistent with non-refoulement obligations.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees called on the United States to "maintain its commitment to the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers" and to honor the 1951 Convention.

International law engaged

InstrumentProvisionWhat it protects or prohibits
International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsArticle 18Freedom of religion and belief — prohibition on discriminatory restrictions on entry based on religion
1951 Refugee ConventionArticle 3Non-discrimination — refugees entitled to protection regardless of religion
1951 Refugee ConventionArticle 33Non-refoulement — prohibition on return to countries where persons face serious risk of persecution

Update log

  1. Ban revoked by Biden administration.

  2. Updated with Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Hawaii.

Sequence of events

  1. EO 13769 signed

    Trump signs Executive Order 13769, halting entry from seven Muslim-majority countries and suspending the refugee program for 120 days. Chaos erupts at airports; green card holders and visa holders are detained or turned away.

  2. Federal courts issue emergency stays

    Judges in New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Washington issue emergency stays blocking enforcement. ACLU files habeas corpus suits at JFK Airport.

  3. Ninth Circuit refuses to reinstate ban

    A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel unanimously refuses to reinstate EO 13769 while litigation proceeds, finding states had standing and the order likely violated due process.

  4. EO 13780 — revised ban signed

    Trump signs a revised order removing Iraq, eliminating language prioritizing Christian refugees, and dropping indefinite bans on Syrian refugees. Courts still block it.

  5. Presidential Proclamation 9645 — third version

    A presidential proclamation issues indefinite country-specific restrictions on Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela (government officials), and Yemen — based on countries' failure to meet information-sharing standards.

  6. Supreme Court allows Proclamation 9645 to take full effect

    The Supreme Court grants the government's applications to stay lower court injunctions, allowing the third-generation ban to take effect while appeals proceed.

  7. Supreme Court upholds ban 5-4

    In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court upholds the third ban 5-4, deferring to the executive's broad authority over immigration and national security. Justice Sotomayor's dissent compares the ruling to Korematsu.

  8. Biden revokes all travel bans

    President Biden revokes EO 13769, EO 13780, and PP 9645 on his first day in office.

Sources

  1. Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries — The New York Times
  2. Trump Signs Muslim Ban, ACLU Responds with Lawsuits — ACLU
  3. Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018) — U.S. Supreme Court archived ✓
  4. Timeline of Trump travel ban — The Washington Post
  5. How the Trump travel ban has affected Muslims from targeted countries — Pew Research Center

How this record was published

Related records

Similar by category, grade and tags.

  • Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

    Travel Ban: Muslim-Majority Country Restrictions Through Three Iterations

    The travel ban's anti-Muslim intent was documented in Trump's own public statements: before the first order, Trump had called for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States'; Rudy Giuliani publicly stated Trump had asked him how to create 'a Muslim ban' legally. The first order's implementation — without agency coordination, applying immediately to green card holders, causing chaos and hundreds of detentions at airports — forced a broad injunction within hours. Courts repeatedly found discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the third version, with Chief Justice Roberts's majority explicitly declining to assess whether the stated national security justification was pretextual.

  • Grade 5 of 5: War Crime / Crime Against Humanity

    Travel Ban Expansions: From Muslim Ban to Permanent Entry Restrictions

    The travel ban evolved through three executive orders as earlier versions were blocked by courts for discriminatory purpose and due process violations. The third version added non-Muslim-majority countries to provide legal cover, and was upheld by the Supreme Court 5-4 in June 2018. The Court's majority expressly declined to consider Trump's public statements calling for a Muslim ban; Sotomayor's dissent quoted those statements at length and compared the ruling to Korematsu v. United States.

  • Grade 2 of 5: Major Abuse of Power

    Muslim Ban Day One: Airport Detentions, Legal Chaos, Federal Stays

    The executive order was signed without coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the Department of Defense, or the intelligence community. Customs and Border Protection received no guidance before implementation. Within hours, hundreds of travelers from the seven countries — including green card holders, refugees, and visa holders — were detained at airports or turned away from flights. Federal judges in New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington state issued emergency stays within 24-48 hours. The order was eventually replaced by revised versions that were also challenged legally; the Supreme Court upheld the third version in Trump v. Hawaii (2018).

  • Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

    MS-13 'Animals' and Dehumanizing Rhetoric: Using Gang Labels to Target Immigrant Communities

    Trump's use of 'animals' to describe MS-13 members — and his conflation of the gang label with immigrants broadly — followed the same pattern documented in incitement to ethnic violence: dehumanization of a group, followed by calls for harsh treatment. Scholars of political violence noted the specific language echoed anti-Tutsi propaganda before the Rwandan genocide and Nazi propaganda before the Holocaust. Trump used similar dehumanizing framing for other immigrant groups, describing Central American migrants as an 'infestation' and an 'invasion.'