Trump-Appointed Judge Neomi Rao Slams DOJ’s Weak Case Blocking Congressional ICE Visits

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice took a rare public rebuke from one of its own appointees last Friday after the D.C. Circuit Court unanimously refused to stay a lower court order blocking new ICE visitation policies. The policy required congressional oversight visits to ICE detention facilities to be scheduled at least seven days in advance — a move widely seen as an attempt to block unannounced inspections by lawmakers.

The case, brought by Democratic Rep. Joe Neguse and others, challenged the policy as a violation of federal law designed to ensure transparency and accountability in immigration detention centers. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, appointed by President Biden, agreed and issued a stay on the policy in March 2026, allowing unannounced congressional visits to continue.

In the appellate ruling, Judges Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins, both Obama appointees, joined Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee known for her usual deference to the administration, in denying the DOJ’s request to reinstate the visitation restrictions while the appeal proceeds.

Rao’s solo concurrence was the sharpest critique. Although she believes the DOJ will likely win on appeal and questions the lawmakers’ standing, she said the government failed to demonstrate “irreparable injury” from allowing surprise visits during the appeal. Rao dismissed the administration’s claims of harm as “generalized worries” without concrete evidence of operational disruption.

“ICE’s declaration that any unannounced visit is highly disruptive does not explain how operations are disrupted,” Rao wrote. She emphasized that the government’s argument amounted to little more than administrative inconvenience and that deference to the government’s security concerns was not enough to justify blocking oversight.

But Rao didn’t just slam the DOJ’s weak showing. She also laid out a path for the government to strengthen its case. Rao suggested that the DOJ could argue that the district court’s stay itself, issued without jurisdiction, might cause irreparable harm by favoring one political branch over another. She also invited the government to provide more detailed evidence of the risks posed by unannounced visits.

“With further substantiation of these harms or an explanation of why entering a stay without jurisdiction constitutes irreparable harm in this interbranch conflict, a stay may be within reach,” Rao concluded.

This ruling is a rare example of a Trump-appointed judge openly chastising the administration’s legal team for failing to meet even minimal standards of proof. It also underscores the ongoing battle over congressional oversight of ICE detention centers, where transparency and accountability remain under constant threat.

As the DOJ prepares its next move, this decision sends a clear message: vague claims and political posturing won’t cut it when it comes to blocking lawmakers from shining a light on abuses inside ICE facilities. The fight for democratic oversight and human rights in immigration enforcement continues.