A federal judge appointed by President Joe Biden struck down the Department of Homeland Security's congressional oversight policy for the second time in two months, temporarily halting a requirement that lawmakers provide seven days' notice before visiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued a temporary restraining order Monday, ruling that the Trump administration's attempts to claim it was using alternative funding sources were unconvincing. The law passed by Congress that funds Homeland Security includes language guaranteeing members the right to inspect ICE buildings without prior notice or restraint.

The ruling represents the latest chapter in a months-long legal battle between Democratic lawmakers and DHS over access to immigration detention centers—a fight that has intensified as the Trump administration expands its enforcement operations nationwide.

A Policy Blocked, Then Resurrected

In June 2025, ICE adopted a seven-day notice requirement for congressional visits. According to Courthouse News Service, Cobb concluded in December that the policy likely violated Section 527 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, which prohibits DHS from using appropriated funds "to prevent" members of Congress from entering immigration detention facilities to conduct oversight.

The administration's response was remarkably swift. On January 8, Secretary Kristi Noem issued a new memorandum reinstating the seven-day rule, asserting that it would be "implemented and enforced exclusively with money appropriated" by the 2025 reconciliation bill—the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which does not include Section 527.

In plain terms: DHS lost in court, rewrote the same policy under a different funding label, and tried again.

The policy was enacted without public notice. It became known only when members of a Minnesota delegation were turned away from a detention facility in their state.

The Funding Shell Game

The legal question at the center of this dispute is whether DHS can claim its seven-day notice policy is funded exclusively by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—a reconciliation measure that doesn't contain the congressional oversight requirements found in regular appropriations.

Noem's newest policy claimed all funding for the lawmaker visits would come from the reconciliation bill, not congressional appropriations. That reconciliation law provided $170 billion for immigration enforcement activities, including $45 billion to DHS specifically for expanding immigration detention centers.

Cobb rejected that reasoning. She sided with arguments from House Democrats that the policy likely violates the Administrative Procedure Act and that DHS would be unable to keep the funding streams separate.

The judge cited expert testimony from a former DHS and ICE legal and budgeting official, who said "it would be logistically difficult, if not impossible" for the department to keep the funding streams separated.

Cobb wrote:

Funds used to develop the very policy which the Court has found prevents Members' entry to covered facilities are properly considered funds 'used to prevent' entry as contemplated by Section 527.

The policy restricting access was developed using regular spending funds. The whole thing is tainted.

The Minneapolis Flashpoint

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig, and Kelly Morrison arrived at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis and were initially allowed inside. Shortly after, they were asked to leave and blocked from touring the facility. Rep. Craig said federal agents told her that the Minneapolis facility uses funds from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and, therefore, unannounced visits are not permitted.

The visit came as Minneapolis remained on edge. An ICE agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good on January 7 while she was in her car.

The timing matters. Democrats have seized on individual incidents to build a narrative against ICE enforcement operations—using tragedies as political leverage to justify expanding their oversight demands.

What Democrats Want—And What They're Getting

Representative Joe Neguse, the Colorado Democrat leading the lawsuit, celebrated the ruling:

The Court's decision today to grant a temporary restraining order against ICE's unlawful effort to obstruct congressional oversight is a victory for the American people. We will keep fighting to ensure the rule of law prevails.

Federal law, passed annually since 2019, prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from using appropriated funds to block lawmakers from conducting unannounced oversight visits to immigration detention facilities. Congress enacted the provision after lawmakers were repeatedly blocked from entering detention facilities in 2018 while investigating conditions during the first Trump administration's family separation policy.

Democrats frame their push for unannounced access as a matter of oversight and transparency. But there's an obvious political dimension: these visits are designed to produce unflattering footage and headlines about detention conditions, fuel anti-enforcement narratives, and pressure the administration to soften its immigration policies.

The Security Rationale

In the memo announcing the policy last month, Noem explained the reason for requiring advance notice:

The basis for this policy is that advance notice is necessary to ensure adequate protection for Members of Congress, congressional staff, detainees, and ICE employees alike. Unannounced visits require pulling ICE officers away from their normal duties.

An ICE spokesperson previously stated the advanced notice policy was meant to promote the safety of staff, detainees, and the local community—including maintaining a secure perimeter, scheduling facility tours, and screening all visitors prior to entry.

The administration's argument is not frivolous. Immigration detention facilities are secure environments housing individuals who have violated immigration law, some with criminal histories. Unannounced congressional visits create operational disruptions and potential security vulnerabilities.

But the law, as written, currently favors the lawmakers. That creates a genuine policy problem.

The Judicial Pattern

Monday's ruling marks the second time in as many months that Judge Cobb has temporarily halted Noem's attempt to require seven days' notice for congressional oversight visits.

Cobb wrote in Monday's order:

If anything, the strength of that finding has become greater over the intervening weeks, given that ICE's enforcement and detention practices have become the focus of intense national and congressional interest.

The temporary restraining order lasts 14 days, though it could be extended as the case proceeds. During that period, DHS and ICE are barred from enforcing any advance notice requirement against the plaintiff lawmakers.

What Comes Next

The judge ordered supplemental briefs due on February 8 and February 11, and said she would set a hearing. The ruling does not resolve the broader legal question of whether DHS can ever impose notice requirements on congressional visits. That issue will be addressed in further briefing and, likely, in a hearing on whether to issue a longer-term preliminary injunction.

The administration faces a choice: continue litigating a losing strategy, or find a legislative solution. The underlying problem is that the appropriations rider gives Democrats exactly the tool they want to disrupt immigration enforcement operations. Until that language changes, DHS will continue to run into the same judicial wall.

All 13 Democratic plaintiffs in the lawsuit are members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

• Rep. Joe Neguse (CO)
• Rep. Jason Crow (CO)
• Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD)
• Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS)
• Rep. Veronica Escobar (TX)
• Rep. Dan Goldman (NY)
• Rep. Adriano Espaillat (NY)
• Rep. Jimmy Gomez (CA)
• Rep. Norma Torres (CA)
• Rep. Raul Ruiz (CA)
• Rep. Robert Garcia (CA)
• Rep. Lou Correa (CA)

The pattern is clear. Democrats will continue filing suits, making visits, and generating headlines. The question is whether Republicans in Congress will address the statutory language that enables this—or leave the administration to fight the same battle in court, over and over again.

For now, the facility doors remain open to unannounced visitors with a D next to their name.