A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that a Trump administration policy forcing members of Congress to provide a week’s notice before visiting immigration detention facilities likely violates federal law.
U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) stopping the administration from enforcing the requirement, finding it likely conflicts with both a congressional appropriations restriction and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), according to court records.
The order applies to 13 House Democrats led by Representative Joe Neguse of Colorado in Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Cobb said the lawmakers showed a strong likelihood of success in arguing that a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum—signed by Secretary Kristi Noem to reinstate the seven-day notice rule—was promulgated and enforced using funds subject to “Section 527.”
Why It Matters
The decision affects congressional oversight of federal immigration detention at a moment of heightened scrutiny of ICE operations and protests across multiple cities.
What To Know
Cobb issued the TRO to preserve the status quo while she considers a request to stay the January 8 policy under 5 U.S.C. § 705.
In her order, she wrote that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail because “Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on their claims that the January 8, 2026, version of the notice requirement is also contrary to Section 527 and thus violates the APA.”
The court rejected DHS’s argument that the agency could avoid the restriction through behind-the-scenes accounting that separates funding sources. Cobb reasoned that money used to develop and enforce the notice policy is “properly considered funds ‘used to prevent’ entry as contemplated by Section 527,” because the policy itself functions to limit members’ access to covered facilities.
Background on the Policy Fight
In June 2025, ICE adopted a seven-day notice requirement for congressional visits.
Cobb ruled on December 17, 2025, that the earlier version of the rule was likely beyond DHS’s authority and likely violated Section 527 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act. That provision bars DHS from using appropriated funds “to prevent” members of Congress from entering immigration detention facilities for oversight, the Associated Press reported.
On January 8, Noem issued a new memorandum reinstating the seven-day notice requirement. The memo argued the rule would be “implemented and enforced exclusively with money appropriated” by the 2025 reconciliation bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which does not contain Section 527.
But Cobb noted the memo instructed officials to “ensure appropriate funding for the promulgation of this policy,” language she said signaled future steps and highlighted the practical problem of trying to keep funding streams fully separate in implementation.
During a January 19 hearing, Cobb declined to block the January 8 policy on procedural grounds, finding it was a new agency action and directing plaintiffs to amend their complaint without ruling on the policy’s legality. She stressed that decision was not a determination that the rule was lawful, according to the AP.
The Court’s Harm Finding
Cobb found the lawmakers faced irreparable harm because delays can defeat timely oversight—especially given intensified public and congressional attention on immigration detention practices. She also waived the bond requirement, saying the government had not shown concrete costs that would result from temporarily blocking enforcement against the plaintiffs.
What People Are Saying
U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb wrote Monday: “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.”
Christine Coogle, an attorney for plaintiffs Democracy Forward, said during a January 15 hearing: “Appropriations are not a game. They are a law.”
What Happens Next
The TRO lasts 14 days while the court considers whether to stay the January 8 policy for longer. Cobb ordered supplemental briefs due February 8 and February 11 and said she would schedule a hearing.
Any longer-term relief will hinge on how the court resolves the plaintiffs’ APA claim that DHS used Section 527-restricted funds to promulgate and enforce the policy.
Separate litigation over immigration enforcement tactics is continuing in other courts, including appeals involving protests and limits on federal agents’ conduct, as well as related legal fights in Minnesota tied to the government’s Operation Metro Surge.
