Reading mode Exit reading mode

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.

Record summary

Grade

Grade 5 of 5: War Crime / Crime Against Humanity

Conduct that satisfies the legal elements of a war crime under the Rome Statute (Article 8), a crime against humanity (Article 7), or genocide (Article 6). Scale and definitions

Status
Concluded
Incident date
Record updated
Location
Washington, D.C.
Category
Civil Rights
Legal posture
Judicial finding
War-crime classification
Enabling conduct
Verification
Independently verified
ICC relevance
No
Sources
4 cited
Stable ID
trump-muslim-ban-expansion-third-country
Victims
Nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Chad (later removed) who were separated from U.S.-based family members; refugees blocked from resettlement; travelers with legitimate visas denied boarding
Alleged responsible parties
  • Donald Trump, President of the United States— White House
  • Stephen Miller, Senior Advisor; primary architect of travel ban policy— White House

Key points

  • Trump called explicitly for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' in December 2015 — a statement Sotomayor's dissent in Trump v. Hawaii quoted in full
  • The first travel ban (EO 13769, January 27, 2017) was blocked by federal courts within days; the second revised version was also blocked; the third version added Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela to create the appearance of non-religious motivation
  • The Supreme Court upheld the third version 5-4 in Trump v. Hawaii (June 2018), deferring to the president's broad authority over immigration and declining to consider Trump's public statements about a Muslim ban
  • Justice Sotomayor's dissent quoted Trump's statements at length and wrote that 'the majority here wholly buys into the Government's contention that the President's public statements should be ignored' — comparing the ruling to Korematsu v. United States
  • Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion explicitly stated 'Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided' in the same ruling that upheld Trump's travel restrictions — a logical tension widely noted by legal scholars
  • The ban remained in effect through Trump's first term; Biden revoked it on Day One of his presidency, calling it 'a stain on our national conscience'

Overview

On December 7, 2015, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." He won the presidency thirteen months later. On January 27, 2017 — a week into his term — he issued the first executive order implementing that shutdown.

The policy went through three iterations as courts blocked successive versions for discriminatory intent. The third version added non-Muslim-majority countries to provide legal cover. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision that Sotomayor compared to Korematsu, upheld it.

The Dissent

Justice Sotomayor's dissent in Trump v. Hawaii is one of the most significant judicial documents of the era. She quoted Trump's statements at length — "Islam hates us," "total and complete shutdown of Muslims" — and wrote that the majority had "wholly bought into the Government's contention that the President's public statements should be ignored."

Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion, in the same ruling, stated that Korematsu — the 1944 decision that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans — "was gravely wrong the day it was decided." The logical tension between that statement and the majority's deference to a policy whose architect had explicitly called for a Muslim ban was widely noted by legal scholars.

The Real-World Impact

The ban separated families. American citizens with Iranian-born spouses could not bring them home. American permanent residents could not visit elderly parents in Yemen. Refugees who had survived years of conflict and completed multi-year vetting processes were blocked at the airport.

Biden revoked the ban on his first day in office. The families separated during the three-year ban cannot recover the years lost.

International law engaged

InstrumentProvisionWhat it protects or prohibits
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial DiscriminationArticle 1Racial discrimination includes discrimination based on national origin or religion — the travel ban's disproportionate targeting of Muslim-majority countries constitutes religious discrimination
International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsArticle 18Freedom of religion — travel bans targeting nationals of Muslim-majority countries on the basis of religion violate this right
1951 Refugee ConventionArticle 33Non-refoulement — the travel ban effectively barred asylum seekers from designated countries from reaching the U.S. to make asylum claims

Update log

  1. Updated with Biden revocation.

Sequence of events

  1. Trump calls for 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims'

    Trump's campaign releases a statement calling 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.' The call is widely condemned as unconstitutional religious discrimination.

  2. First travel ban signed

    Executive Order 13769 bans entry from seven predominantly Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen) for 90 days and suspends the refugee program. Federal courts block it within days.

  3. Second travel ban — courts block it

    A revised order removes Iraq from the list and makes other modifications. Multiple federal courts block this version as well, finding it still reflects discriminatory religious motivation based on Trump's prior public statements.

  4. Third travel ban — adds non-Muslim countries

    Trump issues the third travel ban, Proclamation 9645, which adds Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela to the list of restricted countries — providing legal cover by including non-Muslim-majority countries. Courts again block aspects of it.

  5. Supreme Court upholds ban 5-4

    The Supreme Court upholds the third travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii, 5-4. The majority declines to consider Trump's public statements about a Muslim ban. Sotomayor's dissent compares the ruling to Korematsu and quotes Trump's statements at length.

  6. Biden revokes travel ban on Day One

    Biden revokes the travel ban by executive order on his first day in office, calling it 'a stain on our national conscience.'

Sources

  1. Supreme Court Upholds Travel Ban — The New York Times
  2. Trump v. Hawaii — Supreme Court Opinion — Supreme Court of the United States archived ✓
  3. Trump called for 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' — The Washington Post
  4. Trump v. Hawaii — Case Documents — ACLU

How this record was published

Manually curated This entry was added directly and does not carry an automated audit trail.

About our editorial methodology →

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 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

    DACA Rescission: Ending Protection for 800,000 Childhood Arrivals

    DACA recipients — sometimes called Dreamers — had arrived in the United States as children, had lived here for years or decades, had submitted to background checks, and had registered with the government in reliance on the Obama administration's promise of temporary protection. Sessions announced the rescission by describing immigrants in terms that critics said echoed nativist rhetoric. The administration's stated legal basis was that DACA was an unconstitutional executive overreach; the Supreme Court did not reach this question, instead finding the rescission procedurally defective — the DHS Secretary had failed to adequately explain the agency's reasoning as required by the APA.

  • 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.'