Joe Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

── Joe Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 26-5072 September Term, 2025 1:25-cv-02463-JMC Filed On: May 8, 2026 Joe Neguse, in his official capacity as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, et al., Appellees v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Appellants BEFORE: Pillard, Wilkins, and Rao*, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the motion for a stay pending appeal, which includes a request for an administrative stay; the opposition to the request for an administrative stay; the opposition to the stay motion; the reply; and the Rule 28(j) letter and the response thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion for a stay be denied. Appellants have not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009); D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2025). It is FURTHER ORDERED that the request for an administrative stay be dismissed as moot. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk BY: /s/ Selena R. Gancasz Deputy Clerk * A statement by Circuit Judge Rao, concurring in this order, is attached.  RAO, Circuit Judge, concurring: The Department of Homeland Security issued a policy requiring members of Congress to provide seven days’ notice before oversight visits at immigration detention facilities. The district court stayed the policy and held that several Members of Congress have standing to challenge the denial of access to these facilities. Because the Constitution and longstanding Supreme Court precedent foreclose the Members’ standing to bring this lawsuit, the government is very likely to succeed on its appeal. While its appeal is pending, the government seeks a stay and so must establish irreparable injury from the district court’s order. The government is entitled to deference on how it maintains the security of detention facilities, but the current record does not substantiate the government’s claim that oversight visits without advance notice impose harms beyond administrative inconvenience. While a close call, particularly because of the strong likelihood of success on the merits, I concur in denying a stay. I. Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) include a rider that states no funds “may be used to prevent” members of Congress or their staff “from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight,” facilities that detain aliens. Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-47, Div. C, § 527(a), 138 Stat. 460, 619. The rider may not “be construed to require” that members of Congress “provide prior notice of the intent to enter” a detention facility, although DHS may require congressional staff to provide twenty-four hours’ notice. § 527(b)–(c). In June 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) issued a policy that required members of Congress and their staff to provide at least seven days’ notice before visiting immigration detention facilities. Soon after, twelve Members  2 of Congress were denied access for failing to provide advance notice. The Members sued in district court, alleging the notice policy violated the appropriations rider because DHS was using appropriated f