House Democrats Challenge DHS Directive on ICE Facility Visits
House Democrats took action on Monday, seeking a federal judge’s intervention to block a new directive from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. This policy asks for advance notice of congressional visits to ICE detention facilities. In their court filing, they argue that this directive is politically motivated and infringes upon federal spending laws as well as previous court decisions.
Last year, Democrats had already initiated a lawsuit against a similar requirement that mandated seven days’ notice, claiming it contravened Section 527 of federal appropriations law, which forbids the DHS from blocking Congressional access to these facilities with appropriated funds.
A temporary injunction from U.S. District Judge Gia Cobb had previously halted the regulation from taking effect, pending the government’s evidence that Section 527 funds weren’t being misused.
However, the new directive issued by Noem last week reinstates the seven-day notice requirement for Congress, raising further concerns.
Lawmakers pointed out that this directive’s timing is notably suspicious, occurring just a day after a politically charged shooting incident involving ICE agents, which is under federal investigation.
Noem maintains that her directive complies with legal standards since it is funded through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) instead of annual appropriations, claiming it therefore avoids limitations from Section 527.
Democrats, however, are contesting this in court, stating that it contradicts Cobb’s prior ruling. They assert that it would be nearly impossible for DHS to use OBBBA funds “exclusively” for new policies developed since December.
They are requesting that the judge demand an explanation from DHS about the legality of this duplicate insurance and hold an emergency hearing to consider the new directive.
The group commented, “Defendants’ dual notification policy once again obstructs Congressional oversight of ICE detention facilities amid increasing violence reported by communities nationwide.”
They also highlighted that the current resolution will expire at the month’s end, while Congress is negotiating the budget for DHS and ICE, including potential limitations on DHS funding.
Plaintiffs in this lawsuit, represented by groups like Democracy Forward and American Oversight, include over a dozen House Democrats. Notable figures among them are Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and Adriano Espaillat, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Their statement emphasized that maintaining timely oversight of ICE facilities is vital for informed negotiations and holds the agency accountable for conditions detainees face.
In defending its actions, DHS asserted that all ICE facilities are financed through the OBBBA, and Noem’s guidance is designed to ensure compliance with existing court orders.
DHS Assistant Secretary McLaughlin explained that previous court rulings clarified that funds from Congress cannot prevent Congressional access, but funds from the OBBBA are exempt from this restriction.
According to DHS, the new guidance aims to protect members of Congress, their staff, detainees, and ICE personnel, citing that unannounced visits could disrupt regular duties for ICE officers.
