The Department of Homeland Security has reinstated a policy requiring advance notice for congressional visits to immigration detention centers. Now, Inland Empire Democrats who previously sued the agency are asking a federal judge to step in again.
Last year, twelve lawmakers — including Representatives Raul Ruiz, a Democrat from Palm Desert, and Norma Torres, a Democrat from Pomona — sued DHS after being blocked from conducting unannounced visits. In December, a federal judge ruled that DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot use public funds to limit congressional oversight.
Earlier this week, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem reinstated a seven-day notice requirement, saying the policy is being implemented using funding from the Big Beautiful Bill.
"The basis of this policy is that advance notice is necessary to ensure adequate protection for Members of Congress, congressional staff, detainees, and ICE employees alike," Noem wrote. "Unannounced visits require pulling ICE officers away from their normal duties."
Ruiz says surprise visits are essential to understanding real conditions inside detention centers and argues DHS has not been transparent about how the policy is being enforced. He says that lack of transparency became clear only after what he describes as a secret policy surfaced in the wake of the fatal ICE shooting in Minnesota.
“The existence of the memo, which had not been shared with plaintiffs or the court, only came to light after three members of the Minnesota congressional delegation were subsequently denied access to an ICE facility in Minnesota despite having the court order in hand,” Ruiz said.
Despite being denied entry himself into Adelanto, Ruiz says he has spoken with attorneys who represent people detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. He says lawyers have told him some detainees with chronic illnesses, including diabetes, are not receiving medication consistently and do not have regular access to food.
“I wanted to assess the conditions in Adelanto, but I was denied entry,” Ruiz said. “We have had the most deaths in ICE custody in decades. There needs to be oversight and investigation to ensure humane treatment and safety — not only for those detained, but for the agents themselves.”
Torres has raised similar concerns. For weeks, immigrant rights groups have highlighted the case of Ramiro Santiago, who was arrested at the intersection of Holt and San Antonio avenues in Pomona while walking to pick up his medication. Torres says her office attempted to visit Santiago last week but was unable to do so because he was receiving medical care.
She said it is critical for constituents — and families who may be impacted by an immigration arrest — to complete a privacy waiver form ahead of time. The form gives Torres' office legal permission to contact DHS, ICE, or detention facilities, request information about a detainee’s case, and help connect them with legal or community resources. Without it, Torres says congressional offices are often restricted from intervening once someone is taken into custody.
“We can try to expedite this in our community, if people just fill it out, sign it, don't date it, but keep it somewhere safe,” she said. “So if they are detained or arrested, we can take immediate action and begin the process of inquiring and getting them connected to an attorney who might be able to take their case or connect to a nonprofit organization that deals with these cases in our community.”
Torres also says the plaintiffs are asking a judge to require DHS to disclose how funds from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are being used.
“She needs to show that this is the only money being utilized,” Torres said. “There is no way around transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to taxpayer dollars.”
In a statement, DHS said the policy complies with the December court ruling and was implemented to ensure safety.
“A previous court order stated that funding appropriated to DHS by Congress cannot be used to prevent members of Congress from entering facilities,” the statement said. “However, the court also ruled that funding derived from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is exempt from this limitation.”
