About a dozen congressional Democrats received good news on Monday after a federal judge ruled in their favor, finding that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may have broken the law after previously disallowing Washington lawmakers to visit immigrant detention facilities without providing advanced notice.
All 13 Democratic plaintiffs in the lawsuit are members of the U.S. House of Representatives, who initially joined the litigation last year to legally fight back against DHS rules stipulating that legislators must provide seven days’ notice before being granted access to federal immigration detention facilities.
Those members are Reps. Jason Crow (CO), Joe Neguse (CO), Jamie Raskin (MD), Bennie Thompson (MS), Veronica Escobar (TX), Dan Goldman (NY), Adriano Espaillat (NY), Jimmy Gomez (CA), Norma Torres (CA), Raul Ruiz (CA), Robert Garcia (CA), and Lou Correa (CA).
Request for comment made to DHS did not receive a response at press time.
Back-And-Forth Legal Efforts
The nine-page ruling issued by Judge Jia Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order pending further proceedings for a stay, found that the seven-day notice requirement as initially announced by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in June 2025 “was likely contrary to the terms of a limitations rider attached to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) annual appropriated funds.”
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was passed by Congress one month later, in July 2025.
The new guidance issued Monday follows a previous ruling made by Cobb on Dec. 17, 2025, in which the judge said that a rider known as “Section 527” required lawmakers be provided access to facilities without prior advance due to the ebbs and flows of detention populations. DHS had to provide lawmakers with such access with impunity, the ruling stated.
Noem responded by issuing a new directive on Jan. 8, 2026, reinstating that seven-day policy by tying funding from that large congressional spending package last summer.
The plaintiffs argued that tying said funding to overseeing congressional members’ visits to ICE facilities was nearsighted and essentially unfeasible due to the volume of that legislation and the checks and balances that would go along with that. There were also questions of how funds would be split and how much money was available pertaining to such efforts.
Cobb said in her ruling "that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits," saying that the defendants "relied on a mischaracterization" premised upon Section 527 and its alleged policy violation.
"The Court has already found that DHS’s promulgation, implementation, and enforcement of a nearly identical requirement qualified as Defendants 'us[ing]' funds 'to prevent' Members of Congress from entering facilities as is prohibited by Section 527...because the evidence before the Court demonstrated that the only funds used to promulgate, implement, and enforce the prior notice requirement were DHS’s annually appropriated funds, the Court found that Defendants’ adoption and enforcement of the policy was likely contrary to Section 527," Monday's ruling states.
The ruling follows efforts made in recent weeks by three Democratic lawmakers to visit the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, Minn., to oversee facilities and their conditions. However, they were denied entry even as they presented a valid court order.
Their attempts to visit the facility came after an ICE agent's killing of Minneapolis resident Renee Good, which sparked local and national protests that exacerbated in recent days following the related death of another Minneapolis resident, Alex Pretti.
Ruling is Victory for 'Accountability'
The nonpartisan, nonprofit federal watchdog American Oversight said the ruling corrects what they described as Noem's "secret reinstating" of a policy "through a previously undisclosed memorandum" and shortly after Good's death.
Democratic lawmakers have now been restored the ability to enter ICE detention facilities, speak with detainees, and investigate conditions that include overcrowding, shackling, denial of medical care, and lack of access to counsel.
"Today’s ruling reaffirms what the law has made clear all along: the Trump administration cannot evade accountability by walling off its inhumane and deadly detention practices from congressional oversight,” Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, said in a statement.
At a time when the public has been confronted with violent images of ICE officers attacking people on the street, and reports of abuse, neglect, and deaths in ICE custody, transparency is more important than ever.
Rep. Crow, who sued the Trump Administration in July 2025 after he said he was unlawfully denied him from a federal detention facility in Aurora, said in a statement that Cobb's ruling is "another victory on behalf of oversight."
“Following the law is not optional,” Crow said. “2025 was the deadliest year at federal immigration facilities in decades. The Trump administration is using billions of taxpayer dollars to carry out a violent and lawless immigration agenda with virtually no transparency or accountability."
Neguse referred to the ruling as "a victory for the American people."
"We will keep fighting to ensure the rule of law prevails,” Neguse said in a statement.
This story was updated with additional information.
