Court Blocks ICE’s Attempt to Keep Lawmakers Out of Immigrant Jails

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to limit congressional oversight of immigration detention centers. On Friday, the court declined to pause a lower court ruling that struck down the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) policy forcing members of Congress to provide seven days’ advance notice before visiting these facilities.

The policy, championed by the administration, sought to prevent surprise inspections by lawmakers—a critical tool for uncovering inhumane conditions, abuse, and neglect inside detention centers. The appeals court’s decision keeps in place US District Judge Jia Cobb’s ruling that the visitation restrictions likely violate federal spending laws. Cobb found that DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) improperly used appropriated funds to enforce a policy that blocks lawmakers’ access, despite explicit congressional language forbidding such restrictions.

“The power of the purse rests with Congress,” Judge Cobb wrote, underscoring that no agency, regardless of budget, can sidestep congressional oversight mandates. Over a dozen House Democrats had challenged the policy, arguing that surprise visits are essential to obtain unfiltered information about conditions inside detention centers—information that directly impacts appropriations and policy decisions.

Justice Department attorneys argued the administration was likely to win on appeal and claimed that the visitation restrictions were necessary for “safe management” of the facilities. They also warned that judicial involvement in disputes between branches of government could erode public trust in the courts.

But lawmakers and their legal representatives pushed back, noting that they have conducted multiple surprise visits without incident since the policy was struck down. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represents the lawmakers, called the ruling “a major victory for transparency, for the rule of law, and for the constitutional system of checks and balances.” Perryman emphasized that the administration’s repeated attempts to block access come amid mounting reports of overcrowding, abuse, denial of medical care, and deaths in custody.

This decision is a critical check on the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to shield ICE detention centers from scrutiny. It ensures that members of Congress can continue to conduct unannounced inspections, a vital mechanism to hold the government accountable for the treatment of detained immigrants.

The case, Neguse v. ICE, remains under appeal, but this ruling for now preserves lawmakers’ ability to oversee these facilities without bureaucratic roadblocks.

For an administration that has repeatedly sought to hide the grim realities of immigration detention, this court decision is a welcome pushback in defense of transparency and democratic oversight.