World February 2, 2026

Federal Judge Stops New Attempt to Bar Unannounced Congressional Visits to Immigration Detention Centers

Judge Jia Cobb rules the Department of Homeland Security cannot sidestep earlier injunction by switching funding sources

By Nina Shah
Federal Judge Stops New Attempt to Bar Unannounced Congressional Visits to Immigration Detention Centers

A U.S. district judge has again blocked the Biden-appointed administration's effort to prevent members of Congress from making surprise inspections of immigrant detention facilities, finding the Department of Homeland Security has not demonstrated the policy can be implemented using only restricted earmarked funds.

Key Points

  • Judge Jia Cobb blocked a renewed policy requiring members of Congress to provide at least seven days' notice before visiting immigration detention centers, finding DHS cannot sidestep prior injunctions by switching funding sources - impacts federal oversight, Homeland Security operations, and detention facility governance.
  • The Jan. 8 memo from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem cited "significant and sometimes violent incidents" as justification for the notice requirement; the memo proposed using part of a $29 billion earmark in 2025 immigration enforcement legislation called the One Big Beautiful Bill - affects budgeting and resource allocation within DHS.
  • Thirteen Democratic members of Congress filed the lawsuit, arguing unannounced visits are necessary due to persistent reports of maltreatment, overcrowding and poor sanitation at detention facilities; the case touches on legislative oversight authority and detention facility conditions.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Monday halted a renewed effort by the Trump administration to impose rules requiring lawmakers to provide advance notice before visiting immigrant detention centers.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb concluded that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could not revive a notice requirement it had earlier been prevented from enforcing simply by asserting it would rely on a different pool of funds. The matter arises from a legal challenge brought by 13 Democratic members of Congress.

In a Jan. 8 memo, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem directed that members of Congress must request access to detention facilities at least seven days in advance. The memo cited "significant and sometimes violent incidents" as the justification for the new requirement. That directive mirrored an earlier policy adopted in June that Judge Cobb had blocked from being put into effect using resources drawn from DHS’s general annual budget.

Last month, Cobb had ruled the June policy could not be implemented using staff and equipment financed from the department’s unrestricted annual appropriations, noting that federal law grants members of Congress broad oversight authority at detention centers. In response to that decision, Noem said the agency would instead make use of part of the $29 billion allocated for immigration enforcement in 2025 legislation referred to in the memo as the One Big Beautiful Bill.

On Monday, however, Judge Cobb found the administration had not carried its burden of showing the notice policy could be both implemented and enforced while relying solely on earmarked funds. Cobb wrote that at least some of the resources used or intended to be used to create and enforce the notice requirement "have already been funded and paid for with restricted annual appropriations funds."

"At least some of these resources that either have been or will be used to promulgate and enforce the notice policy have already been funded and paid for with restricted annual appropriations funds," Cobb wrote.

The judge issued a block on the policy pending further litigation. The legal fight centers on whether DHS can alter how it uses internal funding to evade constraints the court recognized when it enjoined the earlier version of the rule.

The group of 13 Democratic lawmakers who brought the suit represent states including California, Colorado, Maryland, Mississippi, New York and Texas. They argue that unannounced visits are essential because detention facilities have repeatedly failed to meet basic standards of care. The plaintiffs say that barring such surprise inspections, particularly while reports persist of maltreatment, overcrowding and poor sanitation, violates a federal law enacted in 2020 during the prior administration.

Separately, the administration has emphasized a tougher stance on both legal and illegal immigration as a key element of the president’s agenda. That approach has included a mass deportation campaign and the detention of thousands of people who are awaiting legal proceedings.


Summary - The court found DHS could not lawfully reimpose a notice rule for congressional visits by reallocating funds, and blocked the policy while the litigation continues.

Risks

  • Legal uncertainty over DHS funding authorities and oversight procedures - could constrain how DHS allocates staff and equipment for detention operations and inspections, impacting operational planning within the agency.
  • Potential limits on congressional oversight if the policy were upheld - may reduce lawmakers' ability to conduct surprise inspections, which plaintiffs say are needed to detect substandard conditions at detention centers; this affects transparency in immigration enforcement.
  • Ongoing litigation leaves the policy status unresolved - the injunction pending further litigation maintains current access for unannounced visits but prolongs uncertainty for DHS, detention facility administrators and lawmakers about future procedures and compliance costs.

More from World

Russia Warns Western Forces Sent to Ukraine Would Be Treated as Legitimate Military Targets Feb 2, 2026 French Government Survives First No-Confidence Motion on 2026 Budget Vote Feb 2, 2026 Who Can Compete in Women’s Events at Milano-Cortina? The Olympics and the Patchwork of Transgender Eligibility Rules Feb 2, 2026 U.S. Olympic hospitality site renamed 'Winter House' after protests over ICE shootings Feb 2, 2026 Greenland’s premier says U.S. still aims for control despite ruling out military action Feb 2, 2026