DHS imposed seven-day notice requirement on lawmakers visiting ICE detention facilities, undercutting statutory oversight power

On June 23, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement component replaced its online guidance for congressional visits to detention facilities, requiring members of Congress and their staff to submit visit requests at least seven calendar days in advance and giving facility officials discretion to end a visit that didn't follow the new protocol. The change tightened a 72-hour notice request DHS had posted just four days earlier, on June 19, 2025, following a string of clashes between lawmakers and ICE personnel at facilities including Delaney Hall in Newark. Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, had already condemned the 72-hour version as "a smokescreen to deny Member visits" days before DHS tightened it further.

Section 527 of the fiscal 2025 appropriations law bars DHS from using appropriated funds to prevent members of Congress from entering, without advance notice, any facility used to detain immigrants for the purpose of conducting oversight. In July 2025, twelve House Democrats — including Reps. Joe Neguse, Adriano Espaillat, Bennie Thompson and Jamie Raskin — sued DHS and Secretary Kristi Noem, arguing the seven-day notice requirement nullified that statutory guarantee and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

DHS's notice requirement effectively let the agency choose what a congressional inspection would find, converting a law written to guarantee spontaneous access into a scheduling process the agency itself controlled.

Updates

2025-12-17 — Judge blocked the seven-day notice requirement [4]

U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb found the seven-day policy was likely contrary to Section 527 and DHS's statutory authority, staying its enforcement and restoring lawmakers' ability to conduct unannounced oversight visits.

2026-01-08 — DHS reissued a near-identical seven-day policy [5]

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued a new memorandum reinstating the seven-day notice requirement, asserting it was funded solely through reconciliation-law money rather than the fiscal 2025 appropriations Section 527 governs.

2026-01-10 — ICE blocked three House Democrats from a Minneapolis facility under the reissued policy [9, 10]

U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig, and Kelly Morrison were initially allowed to enter the ICE facility at Minneapolis's Whipple Federal Building, then told about ten minutes later that officials had "rescinded" their access under the January 8 notice policy and that they had to leave. Omar, who said she had notified the facility in advance, called the denial "a blatant attempt to obstruct members of Congress from doing their oversight duties." The visit came three days after an ICE officer fatally shot U.S. citizen Renee Good in Minneapolis.

2026-01-12 — Lawmakers sought an emergency hearing over the denial [9]

The lawmakers' attorneys asked Judge Cobb to hold an emergency hearing and find that DHS's reissued notice policy violated her December 2025 order, citing the urgency of ongoing DHS/ICE funding negotiations. Cobb scheduled a hearing for that Wednesday.

2026-01-19 — Judge denied show-cause motion over reissued policy [8]

Judge Cobb denied plaintiffs' motion for an order to show cause, ruling that DHS's January 8 policy was a new agency action not covered by her December 2025 stay order — a procedural ruling on the wrong "procedural vehicle" used to challenge it, not a finding on the policy's legality. The ruling came after three Democratic members of Congress were blocked from an oversight visit to an ICE facility near Minneapolis days after an ICE agent shot and killed U.S. citizen Renee Good.

2026-02-02 — Judge blocked the reissued policy; DHS issued another version [6]

Judge Cobb granted a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the January 8 memo. The same day, Noem issued a further memorandum re-implementing the seven-day requirement, asserting the reconciliation funding cited in the prior version had since lapsed.

2026-03-02 — Judge more permanently blocked the policy; DHS appealed [6]

Judge Cobb stayed the latest iteration pending resolution of the underlying suit, again finding lawmakers likely to succeed under Section 527 and the APA; DHS filed notice it would appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

2026-05-08 — D.C. Circuit denied DHS's bid to stay the ruling [7]

A three-judge panel declined to pause the district court's order pending appeal. Judge Neomi Rao's concurrence found the government had not substantiated irreparable harm from unannounced visits, even while viewing the lawmakers' standing to sue as likely to fail on appeal.