Congress members blocked from Minneapolis ICE facility after DHS reinstates access ban

Why the timing matters

The dispute comes as Congress members are negotiating DHS and ICE funding for the next fiscal year, with current appropriations set to expire Jan. 30. Attorneys from the Democracy Forward Foundation said members of Congress must be able to visit detention facilities without advance notice to gather information for those funding negotiations.

“This is a critical moment for oversight, and members of Congress must be able to conduct oversight at ICE detention facilities, without notice, to obtain urgent and essential information for ongoing funding negotiations,” the attorneys wrote in their Monday filing.

The December ruling

Cobb, nominated to the federal bench by President Joe Biden, ruled Dec. 17 that ICE’s seven-day notice requirement for congressional visits likely exceeds DHS’s statutory authority. She issued the temporary block after 12 Democratic members of Congress sued, saying the Trump administration had denied them entry to detention facilities during its nationwide immigration enforcement operations.

Government attorneys had argued that the congressional plaintiffs lacked legal standing and that their concerns about changing conditions inside detention facilities were speculative. Cobb rejected both arguments.

“The changing conditions within ICE facilities means that it is likely impossible for a Member of Congress to reconstruct the conditions at a facility on the day that they initially sought to enter,” Cobb wrote in her December ruling.

Noem’s new memorandum

According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Noem signed the new memorandum last Thursday — one day after Good was shot and killed — reinstating the same seven-day notice policy Cobb had temporarily blocked. Government attorneys did not immediately respond in writing to the hearing request.

Federal law bars DHS from using appropriated general funds to prevent members of Congress from entering DHS facilities for oversight purposes. The plaintiffs’ attorneys said the administration has not demonstrated that none of those funds are being used to implement the reinstated notice policy.