Legal experts explain how Ye, Martha Stewart and Tyler, the Creator can be banned from the UK

The UK government has blocked Kanye West, legally known as Ye, from entering the UK on the grounds that his presence would not be in the public interest. The rapper became famous for a steady string of anti-Semitic comments, expressing his admiration for Hitler and releasing a song called Heil Hitler.

The prospect of performing in front of 150,000 people at the Wireless music festival in London has been condemned by government ministers, festival sponsors, Keir Starmer and the Campaign Against Antisemitism. The festival was canceled after the government confirmed West would not be allowed to enter the UK.

Any foreign national wishing to visit the UK will need permission in the form of a visa or electronic travel authorization (ETA). Both can be rejected for various reasons. The UK’s immigration rules require that people who have previously breached immigration law or been convicted of a criminal offense in the UK or abroad be barred from entry.

The rules also give the home secretary broad discretion to exclude individuals from the UK on the grounds that “by their conduct, character, association or otherwise their presence is not conducive to the public interest”. These are powers applied to the West.

According to the Home Office, these powers are generally used in relation to “national security, unacceptable behavior (such as extremism), international relations or foreign policy, and serious and organized crime”. In 2024, 15 people were expelled from the UK under these powers.

The home secretary only needs to be satisfied that the underlying behavior occurs on the balance of probabilities and will follow the guidance in making decisions.

This guidance was first put forward in 2005 in the context of the “war on terror”. But the guidance also points to wider enforcement, which will disrupt a range of criminal behavior such as organized crime, football hooliganism, immigration rule breaking and corruption.

We only know that the government excluded the West on the grounds that “its presence would not be in the public interest.” It is possible that Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood relied on “producing, publishing and distributing material… to express views that incite hatred that could lead to inter-communal violence in the UK”.

Immigration law in the UK is based on the exercise of wide discretionary powers and guidance is “indicative rather than comprehensive”. This means the home secretary can go beyond the guidance to justify exclusion and is not bound by its precise wording.

The directive does not require someone to have incited violence to be banned, only that they have promoted hatred. Given the extremity of West’s previous public comments, it could be argued that performing at a high-profile music festival would contribute to the normalization of antisemitism. Recent years have seen a rise in anti-Semitic violence in the UK.

Who else has been banned from entering the UK?

West isn’t the first high-profile artist to be banned under these rules. In 2015, Tyler, the Creator was banned from entering the UK. Then-Home Secretary Theresa May said that he “made statements that could incite hatred that could lead to inter-communal violence in the United Kingdom.” This concerned songs that May claimed “depicted violent physical abuse, rape and murder in sensationalist terms that glorified this behaviour”.

In response, the artist said: “In the newspaper stating that entry into the UK was refused, it is clearly stated that these songs were written. [the perspective of] an alter ego – which means they did some research on these songs where they detained me… You can watch any interview and see my personality, see who I am. “I wouldn’t even hurt a fly.”

The government does not routinely disclose the names of people it excludes from the UK. Many of the popular lists of celebrities banned from entering the UK are filled by people with past criminal convictions, including American businesswoman Martha Stewart. They would probably be banned on the grounds that it constitutes a criminal offence, rather than under the “not conducive to the public interest” test.

Exclusions based on the “not conducive to the public interest” test generally relate to reprehensible expression and conduct of a political or religious nature. They include far-right campaigners, Israeli politicians and people from across the political and ideological spectrum, including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whose 15-year ban was overturned following a high court appeal.

Exceptions based on corruption and criminality are generally less newsworthy, but are used in most cases.

The notion that it is not in the public interest for a person to be in the UK is also present in other immigration jurisdictions. The power to strip someone like Shamima Begum of her British citizenship arises where “the deprivation is in the public interest”. But for denaturalization to be justified, the misconduct must cause “serious harm to the vital interests” of the United Kingdom. Denial of entry to a foreign national may occur for less serious misconduct.

In general, it is controversial to give the Minister of Internal Affairs powers in such broad terms. What views and behaviors are sufficiently contrary to the public interest to justify exclusion from the UK is inherently a political decision. Any executive power expressed in broad terms has the potential for abuse.

Challenging West’s exclusion in the courts would require a finding that the home secretary either misunderstood the scope of his very broad statutory powers or made a decision so irrational that no reasonable decision-maker could reach that point. This is an extremely high legal hurdle to clear and the courts are likely to largely defer to the home secretary’s decision.