A federal judge temporarily blocked the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing the latest policy requiring a seven-day notice period for members of Congress to make oversight visits at immigration detention facilities. Judge Jia M. Cobb of the District Court of the District of Columbia issued the temporary restraining order Monday on the newest version of the lawmaker visit policy put in place Jan. 8 for the 13 lawmakers who are challenging it. The order lasts for 14 days as she considers a request from the lawmakers for a more permanent halt to the policy. Cobb had granted a preliminary injunction to House members in December based on an earlier version of the DHS policy that also had the waiting period. In Monday’s order, she pointed to her earlier findings of irreparable harm to lawmakers from the delays, and she wrote that the ability to conduct timely visits has become more relevant. "If anything, the strength of that finding has become greater over the intervening weeks, given that ICE’s enforcement and detention practices have become the focus of intense national and congressional interest," Cobb wrote. A group of House members initially filed the lawsuit against an earlier version of a DHS policy restricting their visits in July, asserting they have the legal right to conduct unannounced visits at immigration detention facilities without prior notice based on Section 527 of federal appropriations law. After Cobb issued a ruling in December blocking DHS from enforcing that policy, the Trump administration issued a new policy memo that sought to get around the legal reasoning in the decision. The policy was enacted without public notice, and became known when members of a Minnesota delegation were unable to visit a detention facility in their state. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, in the newest policy, said all funding for the lawmaker visits will not come from congressional appropriations, but from separate funds in a budget reconciliation law President Donald Trump signed in July. That reconciliation law does not include a provision requiring unannounced visits, and it provided $170 billion for immigration enforcement activities, including $45 billion to DHS specially for the expansion of immigration detention centers. But in her order, Cobb rejected that reasoning, siding with arguments from House Democrats that the policy likely violates the Administrative Procedure Act and that DHS would be unable to keep the funding streams separate. "Plaintiffs present evidence regarding the vast numbers and types of expenditures — including portions of the salaries of a wide array of DHS and ICE personnel — likely necessary to devise and enforce the notice policy," Cobb writes. Cobb cites expert testimony from a former DHS and ICE legal and budgeting official, who said "it would be logistically difficult, if not impossible" for the department to be able to keep the funding streams separated to enact the Jan. 8 policy. Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, hailed the judge's decision to issue a temporary restraining order. “The Court’s decision today to grant a temporary restraining order against ICE’s unlawful effort to obstruct congressional oversight is a victory for the American people," Neguse said. "We will keep fighting to ensure the rule of law prevails."
