A federal judge in Washington, D.C. said in a ruling that a Trump administration policy requiring Congress members to give a week’s notice before visiting immigration facilities likely violates a federal law.
U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb granted a temporary restraining order halting the Trump administration’s requirement, noting that it violates the appropriations rider and the Administrative Procedure Act, court records show.
The order applied to 13 House Democrats led by Representative Joe Neguse of Colorado in the Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement case.
Cobb said the lawmakers showed a strong likelihood of success on their claim that a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum, signed by Secretary Kristi Noem to reinstate the seven-day notice rule, was promulgated and enforced using funds subject to “Section 527.”
Newsweek reached out to DHS via email for comment.
Why It Matters
The decision affects congressional oversight of federal immigration detention at a moment of heightened national scrutiny of ICE operations and protests across several cities.
Cobb previously ruled on December 17, 2025, that a similar seven-day notice rule was likely beyond DHS’s authority.
Monday’s order indicates that DHS’s attempt to revive the rule through a new funding source is still likely to run afoul of the appropriations restriction and the APA, the Associated Press reported.
The ruling also comes amid ongoing litigation over immigration enforcement tactics, including appeals court decisions easing limits on federal agents’ conduct and separate court fights in Minnesota over the government’s Operation Metro Surge.
What To Know
Cobb granted a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo while considering a request for a stay of the January 8 policy under 5 U.S.C. § 705.
She found the lawmakers were likely to succeed on the merits because “Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on their claims that the January 8, 2026, version of the notice requirement is also contrary to Section 527 and thus violates the APA,” the order reads.
The court reasoned that funds used to develop and enforce the notice policy are “properly considered funds ‘used to prevent’ entry as contemplated by Section 527,” rejecting DHS’s argument that back-end accounting could isolate different funding sources.
In June 2025, ICE adopted a seven-day notice requirement for congressional visits.
Cobb concluded in December that the policy likely violated Section 527 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, which prohibits DHS from using appropriated funds “to prevent” members of Congress from entering immigration detention facilities to conduct oversight, and stayed its enforcement, according to the AP.
On January 8, Noem issued a new memorandum reinstating the seven-day rule, asserting that it would be “implemented and enforced exclusively with money appropriated” by the 2025 reconciliation bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which does not include Section 527.
The judge’s order noted that the memo directed officials to “ensure appropriate funding for the promulgation of this policy,” language the court said anticipated future steps and underscored practical difficulties in segregating funds.
Cobb declined to block the January 8 policy on procedural grounds during a January 19 hearing, finding it was a new agency action and instructing plaintiffs to amend their complaint without ruling on its legality. She emphasized the denial was not a finding that the policy was lawful, according to the AP.
The court found irreparable harm because delays thwart timely oversight, reiterating its December conclusion and noting intensified public and congressional interest in ICE detention practices. The order waived a bond, citing the lack of concrete government costs for temporarily halting enforcement against the plaintiffs.
What People Are Saying
U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb said in a court order on Monday: “Funds used to develop the very policy which the Court has found prevents Members’ entry to covered facilities are properly considered funds ‘used to prevent’ entry as contemplated by Section 527.”
Christine Coogle, attorney for plaintiffs Democracy Forward, said during a January 15 hearing: “Appropriations are not a game. They are a law.”
What Happens Next
The TRO runs for 14 days while the court considers a stay of the January 8 policy. The judge ordered supplemental briefs due on February 8 and February 11, and said she would set a hearing.
Any longer-term relief will depend on the court’s resolution of the plaintiffs’ APA claim that DHS used Section 527-restricted funds to promulgate and enforce the policy.
Parallel litigation over immigration enforcement tactics continues in other courts, including appellate review of injunctions related to protests and operational constraints on federal agents.
In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it’s not “both sides,” it’s sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.
When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
