Finding a real American male judge is impossible these days.
Posted on 12/18/2025 7:53:30 AM PST by lowbridge
A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked a Trump administration policy that sought to require members of Congress to submit requests a week before visiting and inspecting Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities.
U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the policy likely violated an appropriations law passed by Congress saying that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, cannot use funds to require lawmakers in Congress to "provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility" to conduct oversight.
That DHS policy, announced in June, said members of Congress should file requests to inspect ICE facilities a minimum of seven days before making the visit, and that only Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could waive that requirement. Before that policy, ICE had historically allowed members of Congress to visit ICE facilities, without prior notice.
"Contrary to Defendants' suggestion, then, (appropriations law) does entitle Members of Congress to access ICE facilities without being subject to a notice requirement," Cobb wrote in her ruling Wednesday.
The D.C.-based judge's order stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the groups Democracy Forward Foundation and American Oversight on behalf of a dozen Democratic lawmakers in Congress who attempted to inspect ICE detention centers.
In a statement, New York Rep. Dan Goldman, a Democrat and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said Wednesday's order vindicated lawmakers' "statutory right to conduct oversight."
"For months, masked, unidentified ICE agents have detained law-abiding immigrants in inhumane and unconstitutional conditions, while DHS has repeatedly and unlawfully blocked me and other Members of Congress from inspecting these facilities," Goldman said.
-snip
Previously, the Trump administration has argued ICE detention site visits by members of Congress should not interfere with President Trump's constitutional powers. It has also accused Democratic lawmakers of going to ICE facilities for political purposes.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
The judge is a biden DEI appointee
Finding a real American male judge is impossible these days.
Fat whale. Probably collects EBT too.
Off to appeals court.
Maybe her IQ is relative to weight, so she must be a genius.
I have lost my respect for SCOTUS by allowing these doofus lower court judges to do this.
It is wrong and they are wrong for allowing this to continue.
Maybe the pig judges like this need to be ignored and let this whole out of their lane judicial overreach thing end up in the laps of SCOTUS for a clear cut end to this nonsense.
If RATs can do this, we can also do this when they run things.
The DOJ should remind these clueless busybody congresscritters that they are still subject to arrest for interfering with ICE during these visits. No staff are allowed.
EC
Here come the grandstanding rats with “news” crews in tow.
Where is Bukele when you need him?
Glad the judge is making sure our tax money is being used wisely! How much "funds" would be required to get lawmakers to provide a week's prior notice? One DHS person making a phone call to the Congressional gopher? Five minutes of a person's time maybe costs nothing, maybe $20.
It's weird the judge focused on use of funds rather than separation of powers.
If it's the use of funds that got the bug up the judge's ass, then how about President Trump write a check for $20,000 to cover all the costs of making prior notice for the whole year? That way the judge wouldn't have to worry about misuse of funds.
Or Pinochet for that matter.
I think she could do with a lot less feeding.
“Off to appeals court.”
Did not SCOTUS recently tell these lower court judges they can’t make national rulings? This obese judge reminds of the hippopotamus, all fat and no brains.
Well, there’s the problem.
“”Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the policy likely violated an appropriations law passed by Congress””
Likely? Like - maybe? The wording of the requirement looks pretty straight forward to me..
What do they do - leave the bench, toss a coin and come up with their decisions?
Or maybe just hand each unannounced visitor an IRS audit summons
Apparently, there are no consequences for ignoring SCOTUS.
Collins
Cruz
Graham
Murkowski
Rounds
The final vote: 52-45 with 3 not voting.
There would be heavy consequences for a Republican to ignore the courts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.