A federal appeals court appeared reluctant to accept the Trump administration’s defence of a policy restricting unannounced visits by lawmakers to immigration detention facilities, raising fresh questions over the limits of congressional oversight.
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments on Tuesday in the administration’s attempt to revive the restrictions introduced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2025.
The policy requires members of Congress to provide at least seven days’ advance notice before visiting facilities operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). A federal judge had blocked the measure, finding that it interfered with lawmakers’ oversight responsibilities.
Judges question administration’s argument
The Justice Department’s central argument was that the 13 Democratic lawmakers who challenged the policy had no legal standing to bring the case. The administration maintained that individual members of Congress cannot sue over alleged harm to the legislative branch’s broader oversight authority.
Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas, appointed by President Donald Trump, questioned whether lawmakers seeking information for official oversight should face greater restrictions than ordinary members of the public pursuing government records.
He noted that congressional members have a more substantial purpose in seeking information than individuals driven by general curiosity.
Justice Department lawyer Steven Myers argued that lawmakers could bring legal challenges if the government treated them unfairly as individuals, rather than claiming that Congress as an institution had been wronged.
However, Circuit Judges Brad Garcia and Robert Wilkins appeared unconvinced.
Garcia suggested that each lawmaker could suffer a distinct injury when denied access to a detention facility, particularly because individual members may have different oversight objectives.
The judges’ questions indicated that the panel could uphold the lower court’s decision blocking the restrictions.
Federal law protects oversight visits
The dispute centres on a federal spending law enacted during Trump’s first term, which expressly prohibits DHS from requiring lawmakers to provide advance notice before entering a facility for oversight purposes.
The administration introduced the seven-day notice requirement last year, citing what it described as significant and sometimes violent incidents at detention centres.
The restrictions have drawn criticism from Democratic lawmakers, several of whom have been arrested while protesting outside immigration facilities or attempting to gain entry.
The lawmakers behind the lawsuit, representing California, Colorado, Maryland, Mississippi, New York and Texas, argue that surprise visits are essential to their oversight work.
They contend that advance notice gives detention facilities an opportunity to prepare for inspections, potentially concealing conditions that lawmakers are seeking to investigate.
Lower courts have repeatedly blocked the policy
US District Judge Jia Cobb ruled in December 2025 that the DHS policy violated federal law. In January, she also blocked a similar restriction introduced by the department under a separate legal authority.
The administration’s latest appeal seeks to overturn those decisions.
Christine Coogle, representing the lawmakers through the Democracy Forward Foundation, told the appeals panel that her clients were not attempting to assert Congress’ institutional authority.
Instead, she argued that the lawmakers were seeking to enforce a specific access right granted directly to them under federal law.
The case comes as immigration enforcement remains a central pillar of Trump’s second term. The administration has pursued an extensive deportation campaign while detaining thousands of people awaiting immigration proceedings.
The appeals court’s eventual ruling could determine whether lawmakers retain the ability to enter immigration detention facilities without advance warning — a critical tool for examining conditions inside the centres.
