Federal Judge Upholds New DHS Policy on Congressional Visits to ICE Facilities

A federal judge has ruled against a request to temporarily block a new policy from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that imposes a week’s notice requirement before members of Congress can visit immigration detention facilities. In a decision issued on January 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb concluded that the DHS did not violate a previous court order when it reinstated this notice requirement.

Judge Cobb clarified that her ruling did not address the legality of the policy itself but rather the procedural approach taken by the plaintiffs, who include several Democratic members of Congress. The judge stated that the attorneys representing the plaintiffs used an inappropriate “procedural vehicle” to challenge the new policy, which she described as a new agency action not covered by her earlier ruling.

The controversy surrounding this policy intensified when three Democratic representatives from Minnesota—Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison, and Angie Craig—were denied access to an ICE facility in Minneapolis. This incident occurred shortly after an ICE officer fatally shot U.S. citizen Renee Good.

In December 2025, Judge Cobb had temporarily blocked a previous oversight visit policy, indicating it was likely illegal for ICE to require a week’s notice for congressional visits. Following Good’s death, Kristi Noem, the Secretary of the DHS, signed a new memorandum that reinstated the seven-day notice policy. The plaintiffs’ legal team argued that the DHS did not disclose this latest policy until after the representatives were denied entry.

In her ruling, Cobb emphasized that the new policy, while similar to the one she suspended, constitutes a fresh action by DHS. She stated, “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.”

A group of twelve Democratic members of Congress has launched a separate lawsuit in Washington to contest ICE’s amended visitor policies, accusing the Trump administration of obstructing congressional oversight of detention facilities amid a significant increase in immigration enforcement. They contend that a law prohibits the DHS from using appropriated funds to restrict Congress members’ access to its facilities for oversight purposes.

Christine Coogle, an attorney representing the plaintiffs from the Democracy Forward Foundation, stated, “Appropriations are not a game. They are a law.” In contrast, a Justice Department attorney, Amber Richer, maintained that the January 8 policy is distinct from the previous policies that Cobb had suspended.

The legal teams for the plaintiffs have highlighted the urgency of the situation, as Congress is currently negotiating funding for the DHS and ICE, with appropriations due to expire on January 30. They emphasized that oversight is crucial during this critical funding period, stating, “Members of Congress must be able to conduct oversight at ICE detention facilities, without notice, to obtain urgent and essential information for ongoing funding negotiations.”

Government attorneys have argued that concerns about changing conditions in ICE facilities over the course of a week are speculative. However, Judge Cobb had previously rejected this line of reasoning, asserting that the dynamic nature of conditions within ICE facilities makes it improbable for congressional members to accurately assess conditions if they are required to provide advance notice.

As this situation develops, the implications for congressional oversight and immigration enforcement policies remain significant, reflecting broader tensions surrounding immigration and government accountability.