H.R.3860 - No Passports for Terrorists and Traffickers Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.3860, the "No Passports for Terrorists and Traffickers Act," aims to authorize the revocation or denial of passports to individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations. The bill amends the Passport Act of 1926, granting the Secretary of State the authority to deny or revoke passports to individuals charged with or convicted of providing material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations. It includes exceptions for return travel to the United States and humanitarian or emergency waivers.
The bill also establishes a right of review for individuals whose passports are denied or revoked, allowing them to appeal the decision. The Secretary of State is required to report to Congress on passport refusals, revocations, issuances, or cancellations related to this act.
Finally, the bill provides definitions for key terms like "passport" and "material support," and includes a rule of construction to avoid abridging First Amendment rights. A severability clause ensures that if any provision is deemed unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act remains in effect.
Expected Effects
The likely effect of this bill is to restrict the travel of individuals suspected of supporting terrorism. This could hinder their ability to engage in terrorist activities abroad.
However, it may also lead to legal challenges based on due process and freedom of association. The reporting requirements will increase transparency regarding the application of this law.
Potential Benefits
- Enhanced national security by restricting travel of individuals affiliated with terrorist organizations.
- Deters individuals from providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations.
- Provides a mechanism for appealing passport denials or revocations, ensuring some due process.
- Increases transparency through reporting requirements to Congress.
- Potentially reduces the risk of terrorist attacks and related crimes.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for infringement on individual liberties, particularly freedom of association and the right to travel.
- Risk of wrongful passport revocation or denial based on inaccurate or incomplete information.
- Could face legal challenges based on due process and First Amendment grounds.
- May strain diplomatic relations if applied to individuals with tenuous connections to terrorism.
- The definition of 'material support' is broad and could be subject to interpretation, potentially affecting legitimate activities.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. While it aims to enhance national security, its potential impact on individual liberties raises concerns under the First and Fifth Amendments.
The First Amendment protects freedom of association, and the denial of a passport based on affiliation with an organization could be challenged as an infringement on this right. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process, and the revocation or denial of a passport without adequate procedural safeguards could also be challenged.
However, the bill includes provisions for appeal and waivers, which may mitigate these concerns. The rule of construction aims to avoid abridging First Amendment rights, but the practical application of this provision will be crucial.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).