House Democrats challenge new Homeland Security order limiting lawmaker visits to immigration facilities
WASHINGTON— Twelve House Democrats A lawsuit was filed last year The Trump administration filed in federal court on Monday over a policy limiting congressional oversight of immigration detention centers, challenging a second, new policy that would impose greater limits on such unannounced visits.
In December, those members of Congress won a lawsuit challenging a Department of Homeland Security policy from June that required lawmakers to give a week’s notice before an oversight visit. Now they’re accusing Homeland Security of “secretly reinstating” that requirement last week.
One January 8 memorandum“Requests for facility visits must be made at least seven (7) calendar days in advance. Any requests to shorten this window must be approved by me,” Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem wrote.
Lawmakers opposing the policies are led by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and include five members from California: Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) and Norma Torres (D-Pomona).
As immigration raids spread to Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California last summer, many Democrats, including those named in the lawsuit, were denied entry to local detention centers. Before that, unannounced inspections were a common and long-standing practice under congressional oversight powers.
“The duplicative notification policy is a transparent attempt by DHS to again subvert the will of Congress… and this Court’s stay of DHS’s custodial visitation policy,” the plaintiffs wrote in a federal court motion seeking an emergency hearing Monday.
On Saturday, three days after Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, three members of Congress from Minnesota attempted to conduct a surveillance visit to an ICE facility near Minneapolis. Their access was denied.
Later, Homeland Security lawyers notified lawmakers and the court of the new policy, according to the court filing.
“Instead of complying with the law, the Department of Homeland Security attempted to circumvent this order by re-enforcing the same illegal policy,” the plaintiffs wrote in a joint statement.
“This is unacceptable,” they said. “Oversight is a fundamental responsibility of Members of Congress and is a constitutional duty that we do not take lightly. It is not something the executive branch can turn on and off at will.”
Congress has stipulated in annual appropriations packages since 2020 that funds cannot be used to prevent a member of Congress from “entering any facility operated by or on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security for surveillance purposes that is used to detain or otherwise house aliens.”
That language formed the basis of a decision last month by U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb in Washington; Cobb found that lawmakers cannot be denied access to visits “unless the government can show” that no grant money was used to operate detention facilities.
Funds from the Big Beautiful Bill Act, which provides nearly $170 billion for immigration and border enforcement, are not subject to the annual appropriations bill’s limitations, Noem wrote in her policy memo.
“ICE must ensure that this policy is implemented and enforced only with money appropriated by OBBBA,” Noem said.
Noem said the new policy is justified because unannounced visits distract ICE officers from their normal duties. “There is also a growing trend to replace legitimate surveillance activities with circus-like publicity stunts, all of which creates a chaotic environment where emotions run high,” he wrote.
In the court filing, lawmakers argued that it was clear that the new policy violated the law.
“The development, publication, communication, and implementation of this policy—as required—is virtually impossible to achieve and achieve without the use of a single dollar of annually appropriated funds,” they wrote.
