House Democrats say revived Noem policy restricting congressional visits to ICE facilities violates court order

On Monday, a dozen House Democrats asked a federal judge to compel the Homeland Security Department to explain how a new policy requiring seven-day notice for congressional oversight visits at immigration detention facilities is in compliance with a December court order that temporarily barred officials from instituting virtually the same requirement. 

In December, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb stayed a DHS policy that required members of Congress to provide seven-days notice before visiting such a facility after the group of lawmakers filed suit, pointing to a provision of law that prohibits immigration officials from requiring advance notice for congressional tours. 

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Jan. 8 issued a memo reinstituting a seven-day notice requirement. Department officials provided this document to the court on Jan. 10, which was the same day that three House Democrats from Minnesota were denied entry to an immigration detention facility in Minneapolis. 

The lawmakers’ attempted visit followed the Jan. 7 fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis. 

Noem in the memo argued that the new policy does not conflict with the judge’s order because she specified that funding for its implementation should only come from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which provided billions for ICE. The statutory requirement regarding congressional access to immigration detention facilities, on the other hand, is part of appropriations bills that annually fund agency operations. 

She also criticized surprise congressional tours of ICE facilities. 

“Unannounced visits require pulling ICE officers away from their normal duties,” the secretary wrote. “Moreover, there is an increasing trend of replacing legitimate oversight activities with circus-like publicity stunts, all of which creates a chaotic environment with heightened emotions.” 

Attorneys from Democracy Forward and American Oversight, two nonprofits that are representing the members of Congress, however, contended that DHS hasn’t proven that it is only using One Big Beautiful Bill Act funding to implement the seven-day notice directive. 

“DHS purports to be implementing this duplicate notice policy using a funding source other than annually appropriated funds, and therefore purports not to be subject to the limitations [regarding congressional oversight visits],” they wrote. “But, in light of the purposes of the relevant appropriations and the vast and varied scope of the costs that necessarily contribute to a policy like this at DHS, it is practically impossible that the development, promulgation, communication and implementation of this policy has been, and will be, accomplished — as required — without using a single dollar of annually appropriated funds.”

DHS did not respond to a request for comment.