A dozen lawmakers in the U.S. House are filing suit against the Trump administration after a series of ICE detention visits they say have been illegally blocked.
Federal law grants members of Congress access to ICE detention to conduct oversight visits.
But in June, an ICE memo outlined a new policy that requires lawmakers to give advance notice of facility visits and seek permission to speak to detainees inside.
The lawsuit, filed this week, argues the latest guidance violates federal law that’s been in place since 2019 — including a portion that specifies members of Congress must not be required to give prior notice of their intent to enter facilities to conduct oversight.
The lawmakers say that oversight is needed now, especially as an unprecedented amount of federal funds are allocated to ICE detention. But, since June, they say each of them has been denied access to facilities.
Earlier this month, Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari planned a visit to the Eloy Detention Center south of Phoenix to meet with three detainees from her district. Despite giving ICE seven days notice, she says, all three requests were denied.
A few days later, Congressman Greg Stanton planned to visit the same facility, but was denied.
Neither lawmaker is part of this lawsuit. An Ansari spokesperson said the suit was made up of senior congressional members and she hadn’t been alerted quickly enough to join, but she supported the effort. A spokesperson with Stanton’s office said he was trying to set up an August visit to Eloy in compliance with ICE’s new seven-day notice requirement.
In an email, Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said lawmakers could have set up a tour of facilities, and advanced notice is needed to ensure visits don’t intrude on presidential authority. She pointed to a spike in assaults, disruptions and obstructions” to ICE agents and enforcement as reasons for the new policy at ICE field offices and processing sites.
“As for visits to detention facilities, requests should be made with sufficient time to prevent interference with the President’s Article II authority to oversee executive department functions—a week is sufficient to ensure no intrusion on the President’s constitutional authority. To protect the President’s Article II authority, any request to shorten that time must be approved by the Secretary,” McLaughlin said.
McLaughlin did not respond to questions about whether requiring advanced notice conflicted with existing law.
