Judge Allows DHS Policy Requiring Lawmakers to Give Notice Before Visiting ICE Facilities

The judge said the plaintiffs used the ‘wrong procedural vehicle’ to challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s policy.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) speaks with an officer outside an ICE detention facility in Newark, N.J., on May 9, 2025. AP Photo/Angelina Katsanis

A federal judge on Jan. 19 declined to block the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from enforcing a policy requiring members of Congress to give seven days of advance notice before visiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities.

The order stems from a lawsuit brought by 12 lawmakers, including Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), seeking to challenge a DHS policy issued in June 2025 that requires congressional staff to give advance notice before visiting ICE detention centers. The plaintiffs argued that the policy interferes with Congress’s constitutional oversight authority.

Following that filing, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb of the District of Columbia last month temporarily blocked the DHS policy, ruling that the plaintiffs had demonstrated they will likely succeed on their claim that the requirements are unlawful.

Weeks after the court’s order, DHS issued a memo on Jan. 8 reinstating the seven-day advance notice requirement for congressional visits to ICE facilities, triggering a renewed legal challenge from the plaintiffs.

In a four-page order dated Jan. 19, Cobb denied the plaintiffs’ motion seeking to block the DHS policy, saying they used the “wrong procedural vehicle” to challenge it and that the Jan. 8 memo constitutes a new agency action that is not covered under her previous ruling.

“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,” the judge said.

The plaintiffs could amend their complaint or file a supplemental pleading if they wish to challenge the DHS policy issued on Jan. 8, according to Cobb’s order.

A spokesperson for Democracy Forward, which represents the plaintiffs, told The Epoch Times by email that ithey are reviewing the court’s order.

“We will continue to use every legal tool available to stop the administration’s efforts to hide from congressional oversight,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

DHS did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

On Jan. 12, the plaintiffs alleged that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem “quietly signed” the Jan. 8 memo after an incident in Minneapolis in which a federal agent fatally shot protester Renee Good, who drove her SUV toward the officer after being ordered to exit her vehicle during an ICE operation. Federal officials said the officer opened fire in self-defense.

Anti-ICE protests escalated in Minneapolis following Good’s death. The plaintiffs said the memo’s existence only came to light after three members of the Minnesota congressional delegation were denied entry to an ICE facility in Minnesota, even though they presented Cobb’s December order blocking the DHS policy.

Noem said in her memo that the advance notice requirement is intended to ensure adequate protection for members of Congress, their staff, detainees, and ICE personnel.

“Unannounced visits require pulling ICE officers away from their normal duties. Moreover, there is an increasing trend of replacing legitimate oversight activities with circus-like publicity stunts, all of which creates a chaotic environment with heightened emotions,” the memo said.