Federal Judge Refuses To Block ICE Restrictions On Congressional Visits
A federal judge has declined to block President Donald J. Trump’s administration from enforcing a new policy requiring members of Congress to provide one week’s advance notice before visiting immigration detention facilities—dealing a setback to Democratic lawmakers attempting to bypass new oversight rules.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., ruled Monday after Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., claimed she and other Minnesota Democrats were asked to leave an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Minneapolis on Saturday, January 10. According to Omar, the lawmakers were removed after being informed of the Trump administration’s updated visitation policy.
Attorneys representing several Democratic members of Congress asked Judge Cobb to intervene. However, the judge ruled they had relied on the wrong “procedural vehicle” and emphasized that the January 8 policy is a new action by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), not covered by her earlier ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.
“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,” Cobb wrote.
Just last month, Cobb temporarily halted a previous version of the administration’s oversight visit policy. On December 17, she suggested ICE likely could not require members of Congress to provide a week’s notice before visiting detention facilities.
According to the Associated Press, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem quietly signed a new memorandum reinstating the seven-day notice requirement the day after Minneapolis resident Renee Nicole Good was killed during an ICE enforcement operation.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs, represented by the left-wing legal advocacy group Democracy Forward, said DHS failed to inform them of the revised policy until after Reps. Omar, Kelly Morrison, and Angie Craig were denied entry to an ICE facility inside the Minneapolis federal building.
Melissa Schwartz, a spokesperson for Democracy Forward, said the group is reviewing the judge’s most recent order.
“We will continue to use every legal tool available to stop the administration’s efforts to hide from congressional oversight,” Schwartz said in a statement to the AP.
Earlier this month, House Democrats asked Cobb to block Noem’s new rule, arguing in a court filing that the advance-notice requirement is politically motivated and violates federal spending law, as well as a previous court stay.
Democrats first sued last year to stop the seven-day notice policy, claiming ICE’s visitation rules violate Section 527 of federal spending law, which bars DHS from using appropriated funds to obstruct congressional oversight.
The legal fight comes as some Democrats threaten to withhold support for DHS funding legislation unless it includes new restrictions on ICE—raising the prospect of a funding standoff ahead of the January 30 deadline to avert a partial government shutdown.
Progressive lawmakers in both chambers have pushed for sweeping oversight measures, including requiring ICE agents to obtain warrants before making arrests, mandating visible identification in the field, and restricting the use of firearms in civilian settings. Critics of ICE argue these measures are necessary to curb what they describe as excessive enforcement authority.
The renewed push follows the January 8 ICE shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis. Authorities say Good was killed after allegedly striking an ICE agent with her vehicle while attempting to flee, having earlier blocked an ICE vehicle and followed agents throughout the day during enforcement operations.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has said Democratic support for additional DHS funding depends on such reforms, while Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has drawn what he calls a “red line” against increased ICE funding without changes to the agency’s operations.
For now, the Trump administration’s policy remains in effect—underscoring the president’s commitment to restoring order at the border and enforcing federal immigration law despite escalating political resistance.