What court rulings have found DHS or ICE policies unlawful in 2024–2026?
Executive summary
Three federal judges have produced mixed rulings from 2024 through January 2026 that together struck down, limited, or declined to enjoin Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policies — most notably a December 2025 block of a seven‑day notice policy for congressional inspections, a district‑court finding that a DHS bulletin on recording appeared to violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and a preliminary injunction barring certain uses of Medicaid data for immigration enforcement — while other courts have refused to halt newer or differently framed DHS measures [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. A December ruling halted a notice rule on congressional inspections — then the fight continued
A federal judge in December issued an order blocking DHS’s policy that required members of Congress to give seven days’ notice before visiting immigration detention facilities, a ruling later invoked by lawmakers and plaintiffs as unlawful restraint on congressional oversight, though subsequent filings and court orders in January produced diverging results as judges parsed procedural posture and slight differences between memoranda [1] [2] [5].
2. Judge Jia Cobb’s January decision: refusal to enjoin a revised policy, not a vindication of legality
In mid‑January 2026 Judge Jia M. Cobb refused to temporarily block a newly reinstated DHS memorandum limiting unannounced congressional visits, explicitly stating her order denied relief on procedural grounds rather than on the question of the policy’s lawfulness — the court emphasized plaintiffs used the “wrong procedural vehicle” and that the January memo “facially differs” from the version she blocked in December [1] [5] [6].
3. A separate Washington DC ruling allowed the seven‑day rule to continue pending procedural resolution
Another judge in Washington, DC likewise declined to enjoin DHS’s enforcement of a seven‑day notice requirement after finding differences in how DHS funded or framed the policy, effectively permitting the department to insist on notice while litigation over the earlier block and the policy’s financing played out [5] [2].
4. A district judge found a DHS bulletin on recording appears to violate the APA
U.S. District Judge Hernan A. Vera ruled that a DHS bulletin, which characterized use of cameras, livestreaming and video recording at protests as “unlawful civil unrest” tactics and threats, constituted a policy that appears to violate the Administrative Procedure Act — a finding central to a California case brought by journalists who alleged the bulletin suppressed First Amendment newsgathering and observation activities [3].
5. A preliminary injunction curtailed DHS/ICE access to state Medicaid data for enforcement
U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick (reporting names vary in outlets) or Judge William H. Chhabria (in the reporting summarized) granted a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocked DHS from using certain Medicaid data obtained from plaintiff states for immigration enforcement purposes, finding the new data‑sharing policy problematic enough to warrant limited relief until further review; the opinion narrowed what DHS could obtain to basic biographical and contact information for individuals unlawfully present, while rejecting some broader state claims about statutory privacy violations [4].
6. Litigation and political pressures reveal competing narratives and agendas
Courts have been responsive both to constitutional oversight concerns and to executive branch framing; plaintiffs (Democratic lawmakers, state attorneys general, journalists and advocacy groups) portray DHS/ICE actions as unlawful overreach or opaque policy shifts, while DHS and some courts argue procedural defects or differing factual predicates justify narrower relief — the result is a patchwork of injunctions, denials and ongoing litigation that reflects adversarial legal strategies and political stakes around immigration enforcement [6] [7] [8].
7. What the record does — and does not — show through January 2026
The public record from reporting shows several concrete judicial checks: a December block on the seven‑day notice policy (later revisited), Judge Vera’s APA finding about the recording bulletin, and a preliminary injunction limiting DHS’s use of state Medicaid data for enforcement; reporters also document judges declining to enjoin revised DHS memoranda and active state lawsuits seeking broader relief, but the materials available do not show final merits rulings resolving all claims or a comprehensive catalogue of every lower‑court decision nationwide [1] [3] [4] [5].