Levin Center Home

Twitter Facebook Youtube Instagram

Encroachment on Congressional Authority

Neguse v. ICE

<<Previous: McGahn Case

Back to Case List

Next: Perlmutter v. Blanche et al.  >>

Major Issue: Whether an executive branch policy requiring individual Members of Congress to provide advance notice seven days before accessing immigration detention facilities violates a federal appropriations law that provides for immediate Member access for purposes of conducting oversight.

Case Status: Open.

Case Description: In July 2025, twelve Democratic Members of the House of Representatives filed suit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and others for denying them access to immigration detention facilities in violation of a provision included in an appropriations law that prohibits ICE from requiring Members “to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility … for the purpose of conducting oversight.” ICE justified its new seven-day notice policy by pointing to unspecified resource and security concerns, despite testimony from the Acting ICE Director just weeks earlier that no such concerns existed. The Members asked the Court to stay the policy while the proceedings are underway.

Procedural Posture: D.C. District Court Judge Jia Cobb was assigned to Case No. 1:25-cv-02463. On July 30, 2025, twelve Democratic House Members filed a Complaint against ICE and others in D.C. District Court seeking a judgment declaring that ICE’s seven-day notice policy violates a provision included in successive appropriations laws that prohibits such advance notice requirements. The Members also filed a Motion to Stay the new ICE policy during the pendency of the proceedings, which the Court granted. ICE then reinstituted the policy, claiming it would not use funds governed by the appropriations provision, but rather new funds appropriated in the One Big Beautiful Bill that were not governed by the provision. The Members filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or in the Alternative for Stay, which the Court granted. On March 2, 2026, the Court also granted their request for a Stay. ICE appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal and an Immediate Administrative Stay. The Members filed their Response. 

On July 30, 2025, twelve Democratic House Members filed a Complaint against ICE and others in D.C. District Court seeking a judgment declaring that ICE’s seven-day notice policy violates the law and must be vacated. In addition, on August 8, 2025, the Members filed a Motion to Stay the new ICE seven-day policy during the pendency of the proceedings. On August 30, 2025, ICE filed its Opposition to the Stay, and on September 12, 2025, the Members filed their Reply. On September 25, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Members’ Motion to Stay the ICE policy, which the Court granted on December 17, 2025. On January 8, 2026, ICE nevertheless reinstituted the seven-day notice requirement, claiming that it directed agency officials to use only funds not governed by the appropriations restriction. On January 12, 2026, the Members filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause and Request for Emergency Hearing, which the Court denied on procedural grounds on January 19, 2026. On January 26, 2026, the Members filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or in the Alternative for Stay, which the Court granted on March 2, 2026. ICE appealed the District Court decision. While on appeal, the Members moved in the District Court for the production of administrative records that  ICE failed to produce. ICE requested a stay on the production of those records pending the Court of Appeals decision. The Members filed a Response arguing that the delay has prejudiced them by depriving them of information that could be used strategically in litigation. On July 27, 2026 the District Court granted the Stay.

On March 3, 2026, ICE appealed the District Court’s ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and on March 4, 2026, filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal and an Immediate Administrative Stay, arguing that the Members lack standing and other points.  Neguse filed his Response on March 16, 2026, and ICE filed its Reply on March 18, 2026. On May 8, 2026, the Court in a Per Curiam Order denied ICE’s Motion to Stay. ICE submitted a Brief on June 24, 2026, arguing that the District Court’s decision should be vacated because the District Court lacked jurisdiction since the statute does not grant rights to individual Members. The Members’ Reply Brief was submitted on July 24, 2026.