A federal judge in Washington DC has ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can continue to require lawmakers to provide a week's notice before inspecting immigration detention facilities, despite having blocked an identical policy last month. The ruling is a temporary victory for the Trump administration, which is also pursuing legal action to support its immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota.
Judge Jia Cobb stated that the new policy, funded by Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' rather than existing appropriations, 'facially differs' from the one she previously blocked. She invited lawmakers to challenge the new policy by amending their complaint or filing a supplemental pleading, and indicated she would consider another temporary restraining order if necessary.
The case stems from an incident earlier this month when three Democratic members of Congress from Minnesota—Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig, and Kelly Morrison—were denied access to an ICE detention centre near Minneapolis. They argued that DHS officials illegally blocked them from performing authorised congressional oversight, in violation of Cobb's December ruling.
Separately, the Justice Department urged a district court judge in Minneapolis to allow federal immigration enforcement actions to continue, in response to a lawsuit filed by Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St Paul seeking to end what they called a 'federal invasion'. The state's attorney general, Keith Ellison, alleged that federal actions, including the shooting death of an unarmed US citizen by an ICE agent, constituted 'arbitrary and capricious federal actions'. Justice Department lawyers dismissed the lawsuit as 'an absurdity', arguing it would undermine federal supremacy.
In a related development, the Justice Department appealed an injunction issued on Friday by Judge Katherine Menendez, which curbed aggressive ICE tactics such as retaliation against protesters and the use of pepper spray. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem initially denied that federal agents had used chemical substances against protesters but later claimed such measures were necessary to 'establish law and order'.
