Eight months after Donald Trump's first attempt to restrict entry into the United States triggered airport protests, lawsuits and nationwide confusion, his administration tried again.
On September 24, 2017, Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, establishing a new system of travel restrictions affecting nationals of eight countries.
The proclamation covered Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen, but unlike Trump's original travel ban, it did not impose identical restrictions on every country.
Instead, the administration created different restrictions for different nations and categories of travelers.
It was the third major version of Trump's controversial travel policy — and this one was deliberately structured to survive the legal challenges that had crippled the previous attempts.
The First Travel Ban Had Created Chaos
Trump's original travel ban had been issued January 27, just one week after he took office.
Executive Order 13769 temporarily barred entry by nationals of seven predominantly Muslim countries, suspended the U.S. refugee program and halted the admission of Syrian refugees indefinitely.
Its implementation was immediate.
Travelers were detained at airports.
Families scrambled for information.
Attorneys arrived at terminals offering assistance.
Thousands of protesters gathered at airports around the country.
Federal judges quickly intervened, and litigation spread through the courts.
The administration responded in March with a revised executive order intended to address some of the legal problems surrounding the original.
That version also became tied up in litigation.
By September, the administration was preparing a third approach.
A New System of Restrictions
Proclamation 9645 followed a worldwide review of the information foreign governments provided to the United States when their citizens sought American visas.
The administration said countries had been evaluated according to factors including identity-management procedures, information sharing and national-security risks.
Trump argued that the resulting restrictions were necessary because the United States needed reliable information about people attempting to enter the country.
The new proclamation therefore differed substantially from the original January order.
Rather than establishing essentially the same temporary restriction across a group of countries, the September proclamation imposed different rules depending upon the country and visa category.
The administration also removed Sudan, which had appeared in the earlier travel restrictions, while adding Chad, North Korea and certain Venezuelan officials.
Eight Countries, Different Rules
The restrictions varied considerably.
For North Korea and Syria, entry by immigrants and nonimmigrants was suspended broadly.
For Iran, immigrant entry was suspended along with most nonimmigrant entry, although exceptions remained for certain student and exchange visas subject to enhanced screening.
For Libya and Yemen, immigrant entry was suspended, along with entry under certain business and tourist visa categories.
For Somalia, immigrant entry was suspended while nonimmigrant travelers faced additional scrutiny.
Chad faced restrictions on immigrant entry and certain business and tourist visas.
The proclamation's treatment of Venezuela was considerably narrower. It restricted certain Venezuelan government officials involved with designated agencies — along with members of their immediate families — from traveling to the United States on certain business and tourist visas.
That distinction was important.
The proclamation did not broadly prohibit Venezuelan citizens from entering the United States.
North Korea Changes the Political Argument
The inclusion of North Korea was particularly significant.
Trump's original travel restrictions had focused entirely on predominantly Muslim countries, helping fuel accusations that the policy represented the “Muslim ban” Trump had called for during his presidential campaign.
The September proclamation now included North Korea, a country whose population was not predominantly Muslim.
It also included limited restrictions involving Venezuelan officials.
The administration argued that this demonstrated the policy was based on national-security standards rather than religion.
Opponents were unconvinced.
They argued that the core of the policy continued to fall overwhelmingly on travelers from Muslim-majority countries and pointed repeatedly to Trump's campaign statements advocating a ban on Muslims entering the United States.
The question of Trump's intent would become an important part of the continuing legal fight.
Trump Says the Restrictions Are About Security
Trump presented the proclamation as a national-security measure.
“As President, I must act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people,” the proclamation declared.
The administration argued that foreign governments needed to provide sufficient information for American officials to determine whether travelers presented security or public-safety risks.
Countries that failed to satisfy those standards could face restrictions until their practices improved.
The proclamation also established procedures for reviewing the restrictions over time rather than presenting them simply as a short-term emergency measure.
This was another important departure from Trump's original January order.
The administration was attempting to build a more durable policy.
Back to Court
The new proclamation did not end the legal battle.
Opponents returned to court and challenged the third version as well.
Federal judges again blocked significant portions of the restrictions, and the dispute continued moving through the judicial system.
But unlike the first travel ban, this version would ultimately survive.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court as Trump v. Hawaii.
On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the proclamation in a 5–4 decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the president had broad statutory authority to suspend entry by certain foreign nationals and that the proclamation was plausibly connected to the government's stated national-security objectives.
The majority also considered Trump's statements concerning Muslims but concluded that the proclamation itself was facially neutral toward religion and rested on a worldwide review process.
The dissenters strongly disagreed.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that Trump's statements provided substantial evidence that anti-Muslim sentiment had influenced the policy.
The Court nevertheless allowed the restrictions to stand.
The Third Attempt Succeeds
The September 24 proclamation represented a turning point in one of the defining controversies of Trump's first year.
The first travel ban had produced chaos.
The second attempted to repair it.
The third was constructed to last.
By replacing a uniform temporary ban with a country-by-country system, conducting a worldwide review and including North Korea and certain Venezuelan officials, the administration created a policy that was more complicated than Trump's original executive order — but also more legally durable.
The political argument surrounding it never disappeared.
Supporters saw the restrictions as a legitimate exercise of presidential authority designed to strengthen immigration screening and protect national security.
Opponents saw another version of the policy Trump had first proposed during the 2016 campaign when he called for restricting Muslim entry into the United States.
This time, however, the administration had produced a version that ultimately survived the courts.
On September 24, 2017, after two earlier attempts had been repeatedly blocked and rewritten, Donald Trump tried for a third time.
And the third travel ban would become the one the Supreme Court allowed to stand.