Judge Refuses to Immediately Block Rule Requiring Advance Notice for Lawmaker Visits to ICE Facilities
A federal judge in Washington declined to immediately stop the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing a policy that requires members of Congress to give seven days’ notice before visiting and inspecting immigration detention facilities. The ruling means that, for now, lawmakers may not be able to conduct surprise oversight visits unless they follow the notice requirement, even as legal challenges against the policy continue.
U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb did not rule that the policy is fully lawful, but said the lawmakers who filed the lawsuit must revise their case to respond to changes the Trump administration made when reinstating the rule. The judge had previously blocked a similar version of the policy in December, citing federal funding laws that require detention facilities to remain open to congressional oversight.
The Homeland Security Department brought the policy back earlier this month, arguing that it can rely on alternative funding provided through a major domestic policy law signed by President Trump, rather than the annual appropriations law that includes oversight protections. The policy drew new attention after Representatives Angie Craig, Ilhan Omar, and Kelly Morrison were denied access to a detention center in Minneapolis during an unannounced visit earlier this month.
The decision comes during a period of heightened immigration enforcement activity in Minnesota, where the Trump administration has deployed around 3,000 federal officers under an operation aimed at increasing arrests and addressing alleged fraud in state social service programs. The crackdown has triggered protests, public tension, and multiple violent incidents, including shootings linked to enforcement actions.
In a separate case, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to allow the Minnesota enforcement operation to continue despite legal challenges filed by the state and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Local officials argue that the operation violates state sovereignty and disrupts public safety efforts, while the federal government has rejected those claims and insists that immigration enforcement remains a federal responsibility.
Meanwhile, federal lawyers also said they are appealing a court order that placed limits on how immigration agents interact with protesters in Minnesota. A judge previously barred agents from retaliating against peaceful demonstrators and restricted certain crowd-control actions, though the administration argues the restrictions interfere with enforcement operations and the protection of federal officers and property.
The legal disputes are expected to continue in the coming days as courts consider the broader question of how far federal immigration authorities can go, and what oversight and protest protections remain in place during large-scale enforcement campaigns.
