A federal judge on Monday declined to step in immediately as the Trump administration moves forward with a policy requiring lawmakers to give a week’s notice before touring immigration detention centers.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, who sits in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Department of Homeland Security did not defy an earlier court order when it reinstated a seven-day advance notice requirement for congressional visits to Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. Her decision keeps the new policy in place for now.
Cobb made clear that her ruling was not an endorsement of the policy itself. Instead, she said the Democratic lawmakers challenging the rule used the wrong legal mechanism to contest it. She also determined that the January 8 directive represents a new agency action that falls outside the scope of her earlier decision siding with the plaintiffs.
READ ALSO: Federal judge temporarily freezes Trump rules restricting lawmakers’ ICE access
The dispute arose after three Democratic members of Congress from Minnesota were denied access to an ICE facility near Minneapolis earlier this month. The attempted visit came just days after an ICE officer shot and killed Renee Good, a U.S. citizen, in Minneapolis.
In December, Cobb had temporarily halted a previous version of the administration’s visitor policy. In a December 17 ruling, she said it was likely unlawful for ICE to require a week’s notice from members of Congress seeking to inspect conditions inside detention facilities.
Following Good’s death, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem quietly signed a new memorandum reinstating the seven-day notice rule. Attorneys with Democracy Forward, which represents the lawmakers, stated that DHS did not disclose the new policy until after Reps. Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison, and Angie Craig were initially turned away from the ICE facility inside the Minneapolis federal building.
In her latest order, Cobb said the January policy resembles an earlier version announced in June 2025 but is not identical.
“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,” she wrote.
Democracy Forward said it is weighing its next steps. Spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz said the group was reviewing the ruling.
“We will continue to use every legal tool available to stop the administration’s efforts to hide from congressional oversight,” she said in a statement.
The Minnesota case is part of a broader legal fight. Twelve other Democratic lawmakers have filed a separate lawsuit in Washington after being blocked from detention centers under ICE’s revised visitor rules. That suit accuses President Donald Trump’s administration of deliberately hindering congressional oversight amid a nationwide ramp-up of immigration enforcement.
Federal law prohibits DHS from using appropriated general funds to keep members of Congress out of department facilities when they are conducting oversight. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that the administration has failed to demonstrate that no such funds are being used to fulfill the latest notice requirement.
“Appropriations are not a game. They are a law,” plaintiffs’ attorney Christine Coogle said during a hearing Wednesday.
The Justice Department countered that the January 8 memorandum signed by Noem stands apart from the policies Cobb blocked last month.
“This is really a challenge to a new policy,” said Justice Department attorney Amber Richer.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys said timing is critical, noting that lawmakers are in the midst of negotiations over DHS and ICE funding for the next fiscal year. Current appropriations are set to expire January 30, AP reported.
“This is a critical moment for oversight, and 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,” the lawyers wrote.
Government attorneys have argued that concerns about changing conditions inside ICE facilities over a seven-day period are speculative. Cobb rejected that reasoning in her December ruling.
“The changing conditions within ICE facilities means that it is likely impossible for a Member of Congress to reconstruct the conditions at a facility on the day that they initially sought to enter,” wrote Cobb, who was appointed to the bench by former President Joe Biden.
