A federal appeals court rebuffed the Trump administration’s attempt to reinstate a policy preventing members of Congress from conducting surprise oversight visits at immigration detention facilities.
A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday declined to pause a lower court order that struck down the administration’s visitation restrictions.
Judges Cornelia Pillard, Robert Wilkins, and Neomi Rao issued the decision in a short order. Rao wrote concurrence saying the lawmakers lack legal standing so the government is likely to ultimately succeed in the appeal, “but the current record does not substantiate the government’s claim that oversight visits without advance notice impose harms beyond administrative inconvenience.”
The order leaves in place a ruling by US District Judge Jia Cobb that struck down a Department of Homeland Security policy requiring lawmakers to provide seven days’ notice before visiting detention sites.
Cobb’s decision stemmed from a legal challenge brought by more than a dozen House Democrats. The administration has twice reissued its visitation policy, which it has claimed is allowed because it would be funded by Republicans’ party-line spending package.
However, Cobb concluded the policy nonetheless likely violated federal spending law because DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement appeared to rely on funds from annual appropriations, despite language in funding bills that prohibits the government from using those funds to prevent lawmakers from entering detention facilities.
“The power of the purse rests with Congress, and even a deep-pocketed agency must comply with Congress’s restrictions on the permissible uses of appropriated funds,” Cobb wrote in her decision.
The Trump administration appealed shortly after the ruling and asked the DC Circuit for reprieve from the ruling while that process continues.
Justice Department attorneys argued the administration was likely to win the case on appeal, and that Cobb’s order, if left in place, would prevent the government from safely managing immigration detention facilities in the meantime.
They also warned that involving the federal courts in a dispute between the two other branches of government would “risk damaging the public confidence” in the court system.
The House Democrats disputed that the government faced any injury from leaving the decision in place. They told the appeals court they have conducted multiple oversight visits since the policy was lifted “without incident,” and that surprise visits were allowed for five years prior to the visitation policy change.
Allowing the administration to reinstate the restrictions would instead harm the lawmakers, who need access to “prompt, unvarnished information” about detention conditions affecting their constituents and issues involved in appropriations negotiations, they said.
“This administration keeps trying to keep members of Congress and people in America from seeing what is happening inside detention facilities, even as reports of overcrowding, abuse, denial of medical care, and deaths in custody continue to grow,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represents the lawmakers, said in a statement Friday.
“Today’s unanimous ruling is another major victory for transparency, for the rule of law, and for the constitutional system of checks and balances that prevents abuses of power,” Perryman added.
A DHS spokesperson said the seven-day notice policy blocked by the court “is a commonsense measure to ensure the safety of staff, law enforcement, visitors, and detainees alike.”
“We strongly disagree with this ruling and will keep fighting for the safety of everyone involved,” the spokesperson said.
The case is Neguse v. ICE, D.C. Cir., No. 26-5072, 5/8/26.
To contact the reporters on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story: