⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The D.C. Circuit considers a dispute over lawmakers' access to immigration detention facilities. In June 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement adopted a policy requiring members of Congress to give seven days' notice before visiting detention facilities. Lawmakers wanted to inspect conditions and gather information for their oversight work, but several were turned away for failing to give advance notice. They sued, pointing to Section Five Twenty-Seven, a spending restriction that bars the use of covered funds to prevent congressional oversight visits and says members need not provide prior notice. A district court suspended the policy. In January 2026, the Department of Homeland Security reinstated the notice requirement, saying it would use funding not subject to that restriction. The district court again blocked the policy, and the government appealed. Much of this argument concerns standing: whether these lawmakers have the kind of injury that allows them to bring this lawsuit in federal court. The government will argue that oversight belongs to Congress as an institution, so individual members cannot bring this suit over interference with that power. The lawmakers' counsel will argue that each member denied access suffers a personal loss of information the statute entitles that member to obtain. The judges will probe that distinction, as well as whether the policy was implemented using funds covered by the restriction.

Joe Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (No. 26-5072) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 3, 2026.