Judge Weighs if Revived ICE Lawmaker Visit Rules Violate Order

A Washington federal judge pressed a Justice Department attorney on whether the government’s revived policy limiting congressional access to immigration detention facilities may violate an earlier court order blocking those restrictions.

Judge Jia Cobb of the US District Court for the District of Columbia held an emergency hearing Wednesday in a challenge by House Democrats to a Department of Homeland Security policy requiring members of Congress to provide seven days of advanced notice before visiting an immigration facility.

Cobb ruled last month that the policy violated oversight language in annual appropriations bills that fund the department’s operations. However, the government put the seven-day requirement back in effect last week and claimed it would now be funded by other sources.

Cobb said at the hearing that she agreed with the government that the reinstated notice requirement is a new policy. However, she questioned the government’s lawyer, Amber Richer, how reimposing a requirement she already halted wouldn’t “run afoul” of her earlier decision if annual appropriations are spent.

“Taking steps to exclude members of Congress from facilities is the subject of my order,” Cobb said.

Cobb asked Richer several times during questioning if she could confirm that no money from annual appropriations has gone toward creating and enforcing the revived visitation policy that the judge already halted.

“I’m prepared to accept the government’s representations,” Cobb said. “But if you can’t make that representation, I have to figure out what to do.”

Christine Coogle of Democracy Forward Foundation, representing the lawmakers, argued the government is violating Cobb’s December decision and urged the judge to issue an order soon that would lift the notice requirement.

Coogle described the issue as “a matter of significant urgency,” given ongoing spending negotiations in Congress ahead of a Jan. 30 funding deadline and “egregious” conditions in detention facilities.

And she pointed to forward-looking language in the government’s court declarations that she said suggest DHS is currently spending appropriated funds to implement the visitation protocols, with plans to adjust the accounting on the back-end.

Holly C. Mehringer, who is functioning as DHS’ top financial officer, said in a declaration filed late Tuesday that “going forward,” DHS “will track the costs incurred enforcing the policy,” and the department “can adjust its accounting ledgers so that they are properly recorded” as having come from separate extra funding the department got last year.

Cobb said “there is something” to Coogle’s argument about the prospective language.

The dispute stems from a July lawsuit filed by Democratic lawmakers over US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s policy that required lawmakers and congressional staff to provide at least seven days’ notice to schedule oversight visits to the department’s detention facilities.

Cobb found in December that the DHS policy was likely illegal, given language in annual spending bills that bars funds from being used to prevent members of Congress from entering its facilities for oversight purposes. The judge blocked the agency from implementing the visitation restrictions while litigation progressed.

However, the Democrats returned to court this week to argue the government is now violating that ruling after they “secretly reimposed” the notice requirement several days earlier.

Three members of Congress from Minnesota were denied access to an immigration detention facility near Minneapolis on Jan. 9, several days after Renee Good was fatally shot by a federal immigration officer, the lawmakers said in a Jan. 12 filing.

The day after they were blocked from entering the Minnesota facility, the federal government told the court it has a new policy on congressional access that again requires members of Congress to submit visitation requests seven days in advance.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated in that Jan. 8 memo that ICE will ensure the visitation policy is “implemented and enforced exclusively” with money provided in Republicans’ sprawling tax and spending package, rather than with annual appropriations. That measure, passed last year through the reconciliation process, also included additional immigration enforcement funding.

Noem claimed the notice requirement is “necessary to ensure adequate protection for Members of Congress, congressional staff, detainees, and ICE employees alike.”

The case is Neguse v. ICE, D.D.C., No. 1:25-cv-02463, hearing held 1/14/26