Federal Judge Says Trump Administration's ICE Visit Notice Rule Likely Violates Federal Law

On Monday, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., halted a Department of Homeland Security policy that would have made members of Congress give a week's notice before visiting immigration detention facilities. U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb granted a temporary restraining order, finding that the policy likely violates a federal appropriations provision and the Administrative Procedure Act, according to court records.

The order covers 13 House Democrats led by Representative Joe Neguse of Colorado, the named plaintiffs in Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Cobb wrote that they had shown a strong likelihood of success on their claim that the January 8, 2026 version of the notice requirement is contrary to Section 527 and therefore violates the APA.

The dispute has a history. In June 2025, ICE adopted a seven-day notice requirement for congressional visits. On December 17, 2025, Cobb ruled that a similar rule was likely beyond DHS's authority. She concluded it probably violated Section 527 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, which bars DHS from using appropriated funds to prevent members of Congress from entering immigration detention facilities for oversight, and she stayed its enforcement, according to the Associated Press.

On January 8, Secretary Kristi Noem issued a new memorandum reinstating the seven-day rule. The memo asserted the policy 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. In effect, DHS was trying to bring the rule back by paying for it from a different pot of money.

Cobb was not persuaded. She wrote that funds used to develop the policy she had found prevents members' entry to covered facilities are properly considered funds used to prevent entry under Section 527. She rejected DHS's argument that back-end accounting could isolate different funding sources. She also noted that the memo directed officials to ensure appropriate funding for the promulgation of the policy, language she said anticipated future steps and underscored the practical difficulty of separating the funds.

The path to this order had a procedural wrinkle. At a January 19 hearing, Cobb declined to block the January 8 policy on procedural grounds, finding it was a new agency action and telling the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. She stressed that the denial was not a finding that the policy was lawful. At an earlier hearing, on January 15, Christine Coogle, an attorney for plaintiffs' counsel Democracy Forward, had argued: "Appropriations are not a game. They are a law."

Cobb found irreparable harm, reasoning that delays thwart timely oversight, as she had in December, and noting intensified public and congressional interest in ICE detention practices. She waived a bond, citing the absence of concrete government costs from pausing enforcement against the plaintiffs. Newsweek said it contacted DHS by email for comment.

The ruling arrives amid heightened national scrutiny of ICE operations and protests in several cities, and alongside other litigation over enforcement tactics, including appeals court decisions easing limits on federal agents' conduct and court fights in Minnesota over Operation Metro Surge.

The restraining order lasts 14 days and is meant to preserve the status quo while Cobb considers a request to stay the January 8 policy under 5 U.S.C. § 705. Supplemental briefs are due February 8 and February 11, and she said she will set a hearing. Any longer-term relief will turn on the APA claim that DHS used Section 527-restricted funds to create and enforce the policy.