A U.S. district judge ruled that the Department of Homeland Security may require members of Congress to provide advance notice before visiting ICE detention centers, leaving the policy in place while declining to rule on its legality.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal judge on Monday allowed the Department of Homeland Security to require members of Congress to provide a week’s notice before visiting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities, concluding that the challenge brought by lawmakers did not properly address the agency’s newly issued policy.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb of the District of Columbia ruled that DHS did not violate a prior court order when it reimposed a seven-day notice requirement for congressional oversight visits, according to The Associated Press. Cobb said she was not ruling on the merits of the policy itself, but found that attorneys representing several Democratic lawmakers used the wrong procedural method to challenge it.
Cobb determined that the Jan. 8 policy issued by DHS constitutes a new agency action and therefore is not covered by her earlier ruling that struck down a similar directive. “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.
The revised notice requirement was issued by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem the day after an ICE officer shot and killed Renee Good in Minneapolis. Two days after the order was quietly implemented, Minnesota Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig, and Kelly Morrison were denied entry to an ICE facility after attempting to conduct oversight visits.
The DHS order cites Cobb’s prior ruling from last month, which invalidated a similar policy issued in June, noting that the judge “explicitly acknowledged” that funds appropriated under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are not subject to Section 527, the federal statute granting members of Congress access to detention facilities. Under the new policy, congressional visits must be conducted “exclusively with money appropriated by the (One Big Beautiful Bill Act).”
Cobb found that while the new policy resembles the earlier directive, it is sufficiently distinct to require a separate legal challenge. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that DHS has not demonstrated that no general appropriated funds are being used to implement the policy. “Appropriations are not a game. They are a law,” said attorney Christine Coogle during a hearing.
Justice Department attorney Amber Richer said the January policy is different from the one previously blocked by the court. “This is really a challenge to a new policy,” Richer said.
Democracy Forward spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz said the organization was reviewing the ruling. “We will continue to use every legal tool available to stop the administration’s efforts to hide from congressional oversight,” she said.
Noem’s order states that advance notice is required to ensure safety and operational stability. “The basis for this policy is that advance notice is necessary to ensure adequate protection for Members of Congress, congressional staff, detainees, and ICE employees alike,” the order reads. It adds that unannounced visits can disrupt operations and that there is an “increasing trend of replacing legitimate oversight activities with circus-like publicity stunts,” creating a chaotic environment.
The ruling leaves the DHS notice requirement in effect while lawmakers consider next steps to challenge the policy through separate legal action.
Original article
Comments