On Monday, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb denied a motion to temporarily halt the enforcement of a policy by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requiring members of Congress to provide a seven-day advance notice before visiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers. The policy, reinstated by DHS on January 8, has triggered legal challenges from several Democratic lawmakers accusing the administration of obstructing Congressional oversight.
Judge Cobb's ruling emphasized that the court was not deciding on the legality of the new policy itself, but rather that the method chosen by the plaintiffs to challenge the policy was improper. She noted that the January 8 policy represented a separate agency action not constrained by an earlier court order that had temporarily blocked a similar notice requirement.
The dispute arose after three Democratic Representatives from Minnesota—Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison, and Angie Craig—were denied access to an ICE facility near Minneapolis earlier this month. This incident occurred days subsequent to the shooting death of U.S. citizen Renee Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis, an event which intensified scrutiny over ICE detention practices.
Previously, on December 17, Judge Cobb had temporarily enjoined an existing DHS policy mandating a week's notice for Congressional visits, suggesting it likely violated legal standards. However, the DHS swiftly reinstated the notice requirement through a memorandum secretly signed by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem following the incident involving Ms. Good, a move plaintiffs' counsel argue was not properly disclosed until lawmakers had already been turned away.
The recent court decision clarified that the January 8 policy is sufficiently distinct from the prior version announced in June 2025 to fall outside the scope of the earlier injunction. Judge Cobb highlighted that the plaintiffs' motion was denied solely based on procedural grounds rather than a definitive judgment on policy legality.
In parallel lawsuits, a group of twelve other Democratic members of Congress petitioned to overturn revisions to ICE's visitation policies after they too faced denied access to detention centers nationwide during an intensified immigration enforcement period. The plaintiffs reference a statutory prohibition against DHS using appropriated funds to restrict Congressional oversight visits, with their attorneys asserting that the administration has failed to demonstrate that no appropriated funds are supporting the enforcement of the new notice rule.
During court proceedings, attorney Christine Coogle stressed the seriousness of the appropriations law, stating, "Appropriations are not a game. They are a law." DOJ attorney Amber Richer countered that the January 8 memorandum represents an independent policy distinct from those under previous scrutiny.
The involvement of Congress in ongoing DHS and ICE budget negotiations, with appropriations set to expire on January 30, underscores the urgency attached to effective oversight capabilities. Plaintiffs' attorneys contend that requiring advance notice obstructs lawmakers' ability to obtain immediate and critical information on facility conditions necessary for informed funding deliberations.
Government representatives have argued that concerns over fluctuating conditions within ICE detention centers during the week-long notice period are speculative. However, Judge Cobb previously rejected this viewpoint, emphasizing that it is "likely impossible for a Member of Congress to reconstruct the conditions at a facility on the day that they initially sought to enter," highlighting the importance of unencumbered and timely oversight.
Judge Cobb, a Biden administration appointee, concluded her ruling without addressing the merits of the argument on the legality of the seven-day notice requirement, placing emphasis instead on proper procedural channels. The conflicting interests at the intersection of immigration enforcement policy, Congressional oversight authority, and the rule of law remain unresolved as the legal process continues.