House Democrats Urge Judge to Block Noem’s Revived ICE Visit Rule

January 12, 2026 — house democrats filed an emergency motion on Monday, January 12, 2026, asking a federal judge to block a new Department of homeland security policy they say revives a court-stayed requirement for advance notice before lawmakers can visit Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb is overseeing the dispute in Washington, where the lawmakers argue the agency has defied her December 17, 2025 stay in Neguse v. ICE that halted an earlier, identical directive.

The motion targets a dhs memo signed by Secretary Kristi Noem on January 8, 2026, which reinstates a waiting period before congressional oversight visits, a change Democrats said would make it harder to monitor conditions and safety inside ICE facilities.

“Defendants’ duplicate notice policy once again obstructs congressional oversight of ice detention facilities at a time of continuing reports of increasingly violent behavior by ICE in communities across the country,”

The clash is the latest turn in litigation that began after dhs issued a prior notice policy in June 2025, which Democrats challenged under Section 527 of federal appropriations law.

Cobb stayed that earlier policy on December 17, 2025, using APA Section 705, after finding that Section 527 prohibits DHS from using funds to require prior notice for congressional visits, while also noting the possibility of an exemption tied to a later funding stream.

Noem’s revived policy arrived as lawmakers pressed for access to ICE sites following a deadly incident connected to the detention system, sharpening the urgency of the latest court filing.

The memo, dated January 8, 2026, was filed in court Saturday and directs a uniform lead time for oversight visits.

“Facility visit requests must be made a minimum of seven (7) calendar days in advance,”

Exceptions are tightly limited. The memo allows exemptions approved only by Noem, according to the filing.

DHS framed the change as an operational and safety measure, contending unannounced visits can pull personnel away from duties and create tensions inside facilities.

“Unannounced visits require pulling ICE officers away from their normal duties. Moreover, there is an increasing trend of replacing legitimate oversight activities with circus-like publicity stunts, all of which creates a chaotic environment with heightened emotions,”

Noem wrote. She cited protection for lawmakers, staff, detainees, and employees.

The memo also attempts to anchor the policy in a different pot of money from the one at issue in the earlier ruling. It directs implementation “exclusively with money appropriated by the (One Big Beautiful Bill Act)” (OBBBA), a summer 2025 law that provided a large new enforcement funding stream for ICE, and argues the funding is exempt from Section 527.

Democrats told the court the memo amounts to the same policy Cobb already halted, repackaged to route around her stay.

They called it a “duplicate notice policy” and argued it subverts the court’s order. The motion also argues it is “practically and administratively impossible” to use only OBBBA funds since December, disputing DHS’s theory that the new funding cures what Cobb found unlawful.

The lawmakers asked the court for emergency relief, including a “show cause” order and an explanation of compliance, and they sought an emergency hearing as Congress enters talks tied to FY2027 DHS funding.

The motion also pointed to an episode in Minneapolis that Democrats said underscores the stakes for rapid, real-time oversight.

An ICE officer fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen, on Wednesday, January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis. The shooting is under federal investigation, the filing said.

The memo was issued one day after Good’s death, Democrats noted. Trump officials have claimed self-defense, a characterization the filing said was rejected by local leaders.

Over the weekend, Democratic lawmakers said they faced shifting access at the Minneapolis ICE facility. Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig, and Kelly Morrison were initially allowed into the ICE facility in Minneapolis, housed at the Whipple Building, before being denied further access, according to the accounts cited in the case.

“Members of Congress have a legal right and constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight where people are being detained. The public deserves to know what is taking place in ICE facilities,”

Omar cast the dispute as a question of legal authority and public accountability.

“The law is crystal-clear: the Trump administration can’t block Members of Congress from conducting real-time oversight of immigration detention facilities. Instead of complying with the law, DHS is subverting the court’s order by re-imposing the same unlawful policy,”

Neguse, the lead plaintiff, accused DHS of reimposing a restriction the court already stopped.

The plaintiffs are 12 House Democrats led by Rep. Joe Neguse, the second-ranking Democratic leader, and include Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Homeland Security Ranking Member, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the Judiciary Ranking Member, and Rep. Robert Garcia, the Oversight Ranking Member.

The group also includes California Democrats Lou Correa, Jimmy Gomez, Raul Ruiz, and Norma Torres, the motion said. The lawmakers are represented by Democracy Forward and American Oversight.

“This threat to the rule of law and our system of checks and balances should concern every single American. We look forward to seeking answers in court about what the government has done here,”

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said the filing was aimed at forcing a court accounting of DHS’s actions under the earlier stay.

“Because all ICE detention facilities are funded through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Secretary Noem issued this guidance to ensure that DHS and ICE comply with existing court orders. The court also ruled that funding derived from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is exempt from this limitation,”

DHS Assistant Secretary McLaughlin said DHS rejected the contention that it was flouting Cobb’s order, arguing the new policy is consistent with the court’s approach to the funding question.

The new fight lands amid shifting practice on congressional access to detention centers. ICE allowed unannounced visits before June 2025, according to the background in the case, before DHS imposed notice restrictions that Democrats said curtailed oversight.

Cobb’s December 17, 2025 ruling centered on appropriations constraints, staying the prior directive while discussing the interplay between Section 527 and the OBBBA funding stream as argued by the government.

The system the policy governs is sizable. ICE held a record roughly 66,000 detainees as of Nov. 30, 2025, with about 47% detained for civil violations, according to the figures cited in the litigation background.

The emergency motion over Noem’s revived ICE visit rule also arrives against a broader legal backdrop, with multiple challenges testing ICE enforcement tactics and the role of courts and local jurisdictions.

In Minnesota, the Twin Cities have sought a temporary restraining order against ICE’s “Operation Metro Surge,” which has been described in litigation as involving 2,000+ officers and 2,000+ arrests, and Illinois and Chicago have mounted challenges to ICE tactics, according to the references cited.

Those cases remain contested and are separate from the oversight dispute before Cobb, but Democrats used the broader environment of scrutiny, along with the Minneapolis access conflict, to argue the court should act quickly.

As of Monday, no ruling had been issued on the emergency motion, the reports said, leaving in place a fast-moving fight over whether lawmakers can conduct unannounced visits or must comply with Noem’s revived notice requirement while Cobb weighs the request for relief.