In brief
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not violate a previous order when it reinstated a policy requiring a seven-day notice for congressional visits to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities. This decision follows a recent incident where three Democratic members of Congress were denied entry to an ICE facility shortly after the shooting of a U.S. citizen by an ICE officer. While Judge Cobb did not decide on the legality of the policy, she emphasized that the plaintiffs' legal challenge was improperly filed. The controversy continues as Congress debates funding for DHS and ICE, with implications for oversight of detention facilities.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge refused Monday to temporarily block the Trump administration from enforcing a new policy requiring a week’s notice before members of Congress can visit immigration detention facilities.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., concluded that the Department of Homeland Security didn’t violate an earlier court order when it reimposed a seven-day notice requirement for congressional oversight visits to ICE facilities.
Cobb stressed that she wasn’t ruling on whether the new policy passes legal muster. Rather, she said, plaintiffs’ attorneys representing several Democratic members of Congress used the wrong “procedural vehicle” to challenge it. The judge also concluded that the Jan. 8 policy is a new agency action that isn’t subject to her prior order in the plaintiffs’ favor.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers asked Cobb to intervene after three Democratic members of Congress from Minnesota were blocked from visiting an ICE facility near Minneapolis earlier this month, just days after an ICE officer shot and killed U.S. citizen Renee Good.
Last month, Cobb temporarily blocked an administration oversight visit policy, determining it likely illegal for ICE to demand a week’s notice from members of Congress wishing to visit and observe conditions in ICE facilities.
A day after Good’s death, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem secretly signed a new memorandum reinstating the seven-day notice requirement. Plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed DHS did not disclose the latest policy until after U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison, and Angie Craig were initially turned away from the Minneapolis ICE facility.
Cobb ruled Monday that the new policy resembles, but is distinct from the one announced in June 2025.
“The Court emphasizes that it denies Plaintiffs’ motion only because it is not the proper avenue to challenge Defendants’ January 8, 2026 memorandum and the policy stated therein, rather than based on any kind of finding that the policy is lawful,” she wrote.
Democracy Forward spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz stated they are reviewing the judge’s latest order, vowing to continue using every legal tool to stop the administration's efforts to obstruct congressional oversight.
Other Democratic members of Congress filed a lawsuit in Washington to challenge ICE’s amended visitor policies after being denied access to detention facilities, arguing the Trump administration is obstructing congressional oversight amid a nationwide spike in immigration enforcement.
A law prohibits DHS from using appropriated funds to block members of Congress from entering DHS facilities for oversight, with attorneys claiming the latest policy implementation lacks clarity on fund usage.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Christine Coogle emphasized during a hearing that “appropriations are not a game. They are a law.”
Justice Department attorney Amber Richer argued that the Jan. 8 policy is distinct from those suspended by Cobb last month, prompting concerns that conditions in ICE facilities can change over time, complicating oversight for Congress members.
Amid negotiations for DHS and ICE funding for the next fiscal year due by Jan. 30, plaintiffs’ attorneys asserted the urgency of the matter for oversight purposes. Cobb also expressed in her earlier decisions that the changing conditions within ICE facilities mean a Member of Congress cannot recreate the circumstances from the day they initially sought entry.
This ruling and ongoing disputes reflect the tension surrounding immigration enforcement and oversight amidst public calls for accountability and transparency within ICE operations.
