Democratic members are again claiming that they can demand access to any federal facilities without approval or even notice to a given agency. We saw previously how Rep. LaMonica McIver stormed an ICE facility and allegedly assaulted an officer. She and others claimed that they had the right of entry without the pre-approval of the agency. Now, after another attempted entry at an ICE facility in Baltimore, an array of Democratic members have sued over their denial. The lawsuit is, in my view, fundamentally flawed, but the members appear to be hoping for another obliging judge. Both sides could be adopting Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s position outside of the ICE facility that “This is BS, plain and simple.”
This week, Van Hollen and several other House and Senate Democrats showed up in Baltimore at the Fallon Federal Building and demanded entry. The group included Sen. Angela Alsobrooks and four members of Maryland’s House delegation: Reps. Glenn Ivey, Johnny Olszewski, Sarah Elfreth and Kweisi Mfume. They then carried out a brief sit-in outside of the door and Van Hollen even objected that the sign said “Welcome,” but they were not welcomed.
As with McIver, the Democrats insisted that they could just show up at any federal office or facility and demand access as a matter of oversight authority. If that were the case, members could barge into any executive office from the White House to the weather service without warning or approval. No court has ever recognized such authority since it would eviscerate the inherent powers of the Executive Branch in our tripartite constitutional system.
The complaint offers a jumbled collection of claims and is poorly conceived and crafted, in my view.
The most relevant seems to be Section 527(a) of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118–47), which states that:
“None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Homeland Security by this Act may be used to prevent…a Member of Congress…from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.”
The Fiscal Year 2024 Appropriations Act also included a provision that states “the Department of Homeland Security may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a).”
First, even if constitutional, this provision only applies to facilities that are used to “detain or other house aliens.” The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has contested that status in past protests. Second, the law cannot, and arguably does not, give carte blanche for instant access. An agency can demand notice to allow it to protect the security and safety of personnel and visitors. DHS can argue that it is not denying entrance so long as they are given notice in advance.
The issue is not the right to inspect but the right to instant access. Of course, the members filed in Baltimore and may hope for a judge who is more accommodating than scrutinizing on authority.
The members could argue that oversight, at times, requires inspections without prior warning to prevent the loss of evidence or agency efforts to conceal poor conditions. However, if the Congress can force such immediate access to ICE facilities, it could presumably demand such access on any federal property. All agencies are subject to the oversight of one or more congressional committees. That sweeping authority runs against the grain of Article II and can create dangerous and obstructive elements for federal officials.
Courts are tasked with reading laws narrowly to avoid such constitutional questions. The question is what constitutes “preventing” under the law. The Administration is not denying access, just requiring advance notice.
This sets up a conflict between Article I and Article II authority. The Administration will argue that immediate and unrestricted access to any ICE facility intrudes on the ability to exercise executive authority. In my view, there must be some area for reasonable limitations on the exercise of oversight authority. What is absolutely clear is that members cannot seek, as did Rep. McIver to force their way into facilties.
Here is the lawsuit: Neguse v. ICE
It’s inspiring to watch a person of such demonstrated middling intelligence like George try to appear erudite and smart. It should give hope to the rest of the idiots and morons of the world. We salute you George, for your unceasing inability to learn, for your serial lying, and for your general lack of hygiene.
Hey george, Dg and Ano
Keep up the good work.
*************************
Pew Research: Young men have shifted MASSIVELY toward the political right since 2023
Now that you loons are going after white women. Your chance is winning is fading fast
MAGA.
More bad news for you fools.
*******************
They begged for that beat down! I am grateful for that whole story.”
That’s Cincinnati city councilwoman Victoria Parks (D) taking to Facebook like a damned fool in the wake of that viral beatdown video from outside the city’s annual music festival last weekend.
The left has always been the party of hate and willing to hurt others.
Nice.
Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh’ Canada!!!
It’s not just Canada. France, Malta, and the UK are planning to recognize Palestinian statehood.
Those communist countries recognize Palestinian beheading.
Quite noble indeed.
Have fun getting your embassies built
Oversight ends when it becomes interference. It is obvious that is what the democrats wish to do, interfere.
It’s all they’ve got to give. They can’t give away our tax money to the NGO money laundering machines, at least for two to four years perhaps longer, so they’ve lost the means to bribe their usual money hosts. They have no plan to resolve any problem(s) because it was their party that started the problems which they cannot admit to causing. And because they actually believe the Marxist Socialist ideology behind the policies they initiated they don’t recognize that there are any problem(s) to be dealt with in the first place.
A visit to a pig farm would reveal the most disgusting pit of mud, stinking ground pig manure, and rotten slop one could imagine. But to the pig, it’s heaven!
——————————————————————–
-Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe. Some of these people have sensitive feelings.”
It has become evident how this will be handled.
Expect to see Jack Smith re-emerge and resume leadership of the judicial system in the United States.
Based on past history, U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper (or equivalent OSF/Arabella Advisors collaborations influenced appointee or funded judge) will issue an injunction denying the presentation of evidence by the lawsuit defense team. Given Maryland, we can also assume the AG, DA, or presiding Judge (also influenced and/or funded by same) will be allowed to write law and prevent the defense from presenting evidence (precedent example: Judge Juan Merchan).
After reams of gag orders and injunctions, the jurors will be ordered in final statement by Judge to convict, which they will. At some point, when the appeals appear to be failing, the judgement will be reduced to “no sentence”, though the conviction left valid.
At this point, the “Progressive” leaders and their compatriots in the Steele Dossier law-faring power structure will propagandize through CNN and the other MSM that the conviction was made and the tens of millions of dollars cost to the taxpayer are reason enough to eliminate further legal process (appeal/overturn) and the cost of defense was raping America so no further action should be taken, since no penalties were given.
The final cultural acceptance will be the sanctification of these “autopen oligarchs/autocrats” WHO HAVE ACCUSED OTHERS of “no king” will rise to prominence — and NO ONE WILL NOTICE their actions have demonstrated EXACTLY what the categories and classifications of those they have demonized with hatred are accused of.
Welcome To America
So politicians are almost all lawyers.. they’re just practicing and building their resumes on the taxpayers dime… just like they don’t have to sign a NDA.. and can insider trade no worried.
This has to be one of the most obvious examples of the devolution of the discourse on this blog.
Professor Turley clearly misquotes black letter law, and yet, some of the more reasonable regulars – like OldMan and Lin – bend over backwards to try to justify it.
Turley was clearly wrong. Of course these funds were appropriated by Congress to DHS.
You can legitimately question the constitutionality of the statute, but don’t try to justify Turley’s egregious error of statutory interpretation.
Sigh. Wrong again, keep going though, maybe if you make the same incorrect reading of the law one more time, you’ll magically become right. Be sure to insult the host and the other commenters, too. Please go away, you’re such a bore.
What have I said that is an “incorrect reading of the law”? Please provide the statutory citation
Please just go away and stop spamming the blog with your irrelevant garbage. That would be a nice way to show respect for how the blog “used to be”.
Got it. So no substance to add? Just ad hominem?
No, we just love your incessant and irrelevant spamming. The one thing that is guaranteed to win people over is when you repeat the same tired crap again and again and again. Then, whine about nobody taking your screeds seriously. Then attack the host. You truly are a master at this.
It’s best to ignore the “Anonymous” troll. His sole reason for being here is to harrass and hurl ad hominem attacks to discourage reasonable discussion and to “keep libs away”.
Georgie, can you please define perjury for us? Oh wait, you can’t. Hahahaha.
How dare you show up here after your total embarrassment yesterday. You’re a total loser, and everyone now knows it.
No George, the point is to keep the average computed IQ of the comments this blog above 20 points. And that’s hard to do when you’re posting.
Considering that SCOTUS is on vacation, I’ll take Anonymous posters for $100. Who’s Elena Kagan?
“. . . misquotes black letter law . . .”
“You can legitimately question the constitutionality of the statute . . .”
Which of course means that it is *not* “black letter law.”
What was that about “devolution?”
Sincere Apologies for the length of this post, but it saves a lot of searching and reading on your part.
For anyone interested, Para 6 of the Complaint cites the ostensible authority of members of the House or Senate to appear without notice, i.e., subsection 527(b) states that this is not to “be construed to require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a [DHS] facility used to detain or otherwise house noncitizens for the purpose of conducting oversight.” FY2024 Appropriations Act, div. C, title V, § 527(b)
Case 1:25-cv-02463 Document 1 Filed 07/30/25 Page 4-5 of 67
–What the Complaint curiously OMITS is the very next subsection, –527(c),– which clearly states that “With respect to individuals described in subsection (a)(2) [congressional members], the Department of Homeland Security may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a).”
(p.161 of 401 at https://www.congress.gov/118/plaws/publ47/PLAW-118publ47.pdf)
Likewise, in Paras 54 and 55 of the Complaint, Plaintiffs cite Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, div. D,
title V, § 532(a), 133 Stat. at 2530 and § 532(b), which states that “[n]othing” in the provision may be construed to
require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a [DHS] facility used to
detain or otherwise house noncitizens.”
(p. 138 of 140 at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-15646/pdf/COMPS-15646.pdf
However, that new reference in the Complaint ALSO excludes the very next subsection 532(c) which provides the SAME
authority for DHS to require a request of “at least 24 hours in advance…”
———-
BOTH statutory citations cited in the Complaint curiously delete/omit the OPENING limiting words of those quoted excerpts, to wit, “None of the funds appropriated…” Indeed, the ENTIRE sentences contained in the quoted provisions actually say, e.g., “SEC. 527. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Homeland Security by this Act may be used to prevent any of the following persons from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight…”
Why were those opening clauses in the citations omitted?
Is the Complaint alleging that DHS funds were used to prevent entry?
If so, the opening Paragraphs of the Complaint establish quite a tenuous nexus between funding and what they allege was their purpose for their unannounced appearance.
See, e.g., Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, mentioning the Delaney facility in New Jersey. But here is the reality, entitled,
“Delaney Hall Currently Holds Murderers, Rapists, Suspected Terrorists, and Gang Members.”
“NEWARK, NJ –Today, as a bus of detainees was entering the security gate of Delaney Hall Detention Center, a group of protestors, including two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, stormed the gate and broke into the detention facility. …
“’Members of Congress storming into a detention facility goes beyond a bizarre political stunt and puts the safety of our law enforcement agents and detainees at risk. Members of Congress are not above the law and cannot illegally break into detention facilities. Had these members requested a tour, we would have facilitated a tour of the facility. This is an evolving situation,’ said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.”
(respecting my limitation of two links, the above quote can be reviewed by adding “https://www.” to the remainder,
dhs.gov/news/2025/05/09/members-congress-break-delaney-hall-detention-center)
(Notwithstanding, Para 8 of the Complaint alleges that DHS unilaterally attempts to enhance 527(c)/532(c) from “at least 24 hours in advance” to a new policy requirement of “a minimum of seven (7) calendar days” notice. While the authority to do so unilaterally may be a legitimate question before the court, that does not appear to alter the right of DHS to impose “at least 24 hours in advance,” etc.)
-Does “at least 24 hours” imply that DHS may unilaterally require more than 24 hours?
-Must congressional advance requests include explanation of how their requests relate to funding and “appropriations?”
-Should classified or private congressional hearings, with sworn testimony/whistleblower testimony/related reports/ precede visits to facilities?
Lin, (a)(2) is not “congressional members” – that is (a)(1).
Now where could that pony be? Dig harder!!
Please read my response at 12:40, thanks.
(correction: sentence should read, “Is the Complaint alleging that congressionally-appropriated funds to DHS were used to prevent entry?” )
Lin, this is a new low,
Do you have any evidence to suggest that the ICE facilities and staff subject to this complaint (or the numerous other oversight requests from members of Congress) are not funded with funds appropriated by Congress to DHS?
Keep digging through that pile of manure, you’ll get to that pony eventually.
Also, lin, you should look at the actual text of (b):
“(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a) for the purpose of conducting oversight.”
If you are indeed a lawyer (as you claim), then you would understand this language to supersede the notice requirement from (c). “Nothing in this section may be construed” is curiously absent from your analysis above.
Apparently, anonymous at 1151 does not understand the committee limitations on “congressional oversight.” Apparently, anonymous thinks any “Member of Congress” has no notice requirement and can just show up at any hour, any day, and demand immediate access and or records or operations or overview on demand, just because he’s a “member of congress.’
Typical MAGA response. If the law is not what you want, just make up a new law.
Hahahahaha, you made a funny, you earned your nickel!!
🤔 So using the legislative process to change the law is now MAGA? What do you propose, ignore the law, do whatever feels good and rely on delays in the judicial process to affect the results you want before it catches up with you? Yeah, no thanks.
Sure. Remember that now according to a joke of a judge it’s illegal for Congress to pass a law that defunds anything at all. Somehow the executive branch is obligated to fund leftist projects in perpetuity, even without the allotment of revenue from Congress. This is the world of the left.
A business cannot exclude people based on race, creed or color. Disneyland follows that law. Can Disneyland require shoes be worn when entering?
Is Disney preventing an Asian without shoes from entering unlawful?
@OLLY
Yes. To the modern left, enforcing the law in any capacity is far right, Nazi, or MAGA. We had best accept this is just a truth for them so we know how to proceed henceforth and for many it is a generational truth, they don’t have any idea what laws even are given their cloistered upbringings during the Obama years. There will be screeching and crying and acting out at literally any enforcement of law, and we had better learn to completely ignore it and move forward anyway.
That “Anonymous” is the blog’s heckler. Clearly he’s just here to heckle others into quitting a discussion.
How can one have a discussion with proven serial liar like George? Hey George, whenever are you going to get around to defining perjury for us? Oh right, you can’t, you showed that yesterday when you took that beatdown. Why should anyone listen to anything that serial liar George has to say about anything? He has absolutely no credibility at all.
Typical Democrat Oversight
Ohhhhh my goodness, the toilet is next to the sink, just like every jail cell in prison. The depravity of it all! If you have ever been to Mexico you would know they use TP and even newspapers to wipe their butts with in the dirtiest nastiest banos imaginable and then dispose of it in an open wastebasket to burn later. Perhaps in Mexico City higher end tourist destinations it’s different but Mexico is pretty much a shithole! Bonapetite Libtard!
Lin,
Thank you for your legal analysis. In this world of annony morons, posing as legal experts, your input is always welcomed!
Lin literally misquoted the black letter law, and you are thanking her? Did you read it?
LIN’s “QUOTE”: “With respect to individuals described in subsection (a)(2) [congressional members], the Department of Homeland Security may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a).”
REALITY: SEE (1) and (2) below.
Sec. 527. (a) None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available to the Department of Homeland Security by this
Act may be used to prevent any of the following persons from entering,
for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for
the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house
aliens, or to make any temporary modification at any such facility that
in any way alters what is observed by a visiting Member of Congress or
such designated employee, compared to what would be observed in the
absence of such modification:
(1) A Member of Congress.
(2) An employee of the United States House of
Representatives or the United States Senate designated by such a
Member for the purposes of this section.
(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of
Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility
described in subsection (a) for the purpose of conducting oversight.
(c) With respect to individuals described in
subsection (a)(2), the Department of Homeland Security may require that
a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a
facility described in subsection (a).
Did you find that pony yet in your pile of manure? Better keep digging!!
I regret to remind you that I “misquoted” nothing.
I expressly point out the nebulous connection between actual language “conducting oversight” and its relevance to “APPROPRIATIONS” (the statutory authority invoked).
I apologize if that was lost in the lengthy post.
thanks anyway.
It would be more helpful to give her a bigger shovel, that way she could dig faster in the manure pile and get to her pony hidden in there.
Lin, was (a)(2) “congressional members”? Yes or no?
Oversight has a purpose, but it is not meant to infringe on executive powers. What we see is political interference, which is beyond the function of oversight.
Lin, read the statute. Oversight is exempt from the notice requirement. Members of Congress are also exempt.
How many times do you need to be told that you’re completely and totally wrong about this? Once more, it would seem. And yet you persist in your misreading and misunderstanding of the law.
>”-Does “at least 24 hours” imply that DHS may unilaterally require more than 24 hours?”
24 hour notice may be reasonable* – even for members of congress who fund ICE with implicit oversight responsibilities.
More than 24 hour notice seems unreasonable – if not evasive.
*how many poor migrants could alligators eat in 24 hours @ Alligator Alcatraz?
“More than 24 hour notice seems unreasonable – if not evasive.”
Don’t care. We’re done with the fake outrage and fake grandstanding.
DG
Still hurt from you comment about Prez Trump and his golfing?
FYI guess who helped the Prez to build his (2) golf courses in Scotland?
That would be Mr Bond himself. Sean C. Feel stupid .
LIn,
“However, that new reference in the Complaint ALSO excludes the very next subsection 532(c) which provides the SAME
authority for DHS to require a request of “at least 24 hours in advance…”
You left out the key word “may” which makes the 24hr notice a non binding requirement. If it said “shall” then your argument would have some validity. Then as you noted sub-section a(2) is about staffers, not Congressmen. Staffers are required to give DHS 24 hrs notices. Individual Congressment can show up anytime without notice and be allowed to enter a facility to conduct oversight without delay.
“e.g., “SEC. 527. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Homeland Security by this Act may be used to prevent any of the following persons from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight…”
It means anyone in DHS who uses funds appropriated by congress for the department which includes salaries of officials and contractors cannot prevent Congressmen from entering the facility. Delaying entry by hours is denial of entry for the purpose of inspecting the facility as it is when they arrived. Not when they have had time to clean and tidy up and threaten or hide detainees who may talk to the congressmen. The whole point of arriving unnanounced is to deny the opportunity to hide misconduct and conditions at the facilities. That’s the purpose of the overisght.
Hey George, you’re really smart, can you give me the definition perjury? Oh that’s right, you can’t.
Well, can you at least point us to the Maxwell testimony, where you said that she lied under oath in court, and which led to her conviction for perjury? Oh that’s right, you can’t. More George lies.
You have no credibility here. Move along.
george
That’s the purpose of the oversight.
Like Jan 6th folks. You dems sure flushed their rights in a hurry.
Forget Georgina, just point and laugh. She’s too stupid to realize how out of her depth she is on pretty much any topic.
Dustoff, the purpose of the oversight is to be able to asses the conditions of the facility without giving them a chance to “tidy” up and hide violations and conditions not up to requirement.
Congressmen are not required to give any notice at all. They can show up anytime they want for oversight purposes. Lin did misquote the law when she stated a(2) meant congressment were supposed to give 24 hrs notice. But a(2) refers to congressional staffers. Congressment are exempt from the requirement.
Then the part where the law says any funds appropriated by Congress for DHS cannot be used to delay Congressmen from conducting oversight. DHS and it’s contractors all use those funds. When they create policies like 7 day notices that apply even to Congressmen they are in effect delaying. The policy is contrary to the law. Lin who his supposedly a lawyer seems to either not understand what she’s reading or is intentionally being disingenious about what the law says.
Oh look, the loser who is unable to even define perjury is here to regale us with more of her “wisdom” about how the American system of government works. While you’re holding court Georgie, can you finally give us the Maxwell testimony where she lied in open court? You have no credibility, why don’t you pollute some other web site with your musings.
George, as I explained elsewhere (@ 2:32), the exemption for providing notice is arguably conditioned upon the Members’ role in Congressional committee hearings. Thus, the exemption might be employed by Members of Congress who are MINORITY MEMBERS and who have explicit authority to do so, pursuant to congressional committee hearings. Otherwise, I would argue that a minimum hour notice or request would be the standard approach.
At least is a good point as is a distinction between a tour an oversight?
Thanks
Maryland my Maryland. Gives a whole new meaning to the “Old Line” state. Yes the good Senator Van Holllen has used that “old line”, over and over again deluding the liberal loons in the sprawling DC suburbs how much his little heart bleeds for their well being. While pretending to care for the illegal alien wife beater and criminal sipping mixed drinks on taxpayer paid holiday retreats to visit his criminal alien adoptees, he bestows a modern popular type of hypocrisy of counterfeit compassion. Pouring out his heart for the betterment of illegal alien criminals while ignoring the many plights of those unfortunate enough to be trapped living in Maryland my Maryland.
Baltimore has a higher murder rate than some South American countries, but that doesn’t stop SuperVan Hollen. Leaping with a sudden bound over gated prisons to ensure that those beloved criminal aliens get the best food, color televisions, Red Zone access, sauna, Xbox, while decrying that they are not housed in the best and most expensive hotels in the State like that of Whirlwind Chuck’s illegals. Jealous I spose.
Maryland my Maryland, where trash, garbage, human waste, and dangerous objects piles up along the highways periodically being picked up by high speed vehicles and thrown across the highway through a windshield. Streams, tributaries and rivers swollen with garbage, plastic, trash, and human waste to the point where it is unsafe to swim in the Atlantic Ocean along the Maryland Shore because of sewage and syringes.
Maryland my Maryland where some of the highest taxes East of the Mississippi are forced upon it’s legal citizens to be wasted on social justice experiments, and DEI cultural adventures resulting in a state government that exceeds in only providing incompetency at every level of government with a 3 Billion (with a “B”) budget shortfall due to Governor Obama II, spending it all on all manner of non-sense . Maryland my Maryland where the electrical grid is more than 75 years obsolete, and the only power lines being built are for Data Centers in Virginia, not for turning on any light bulbs in Maryland.
Maryland my Maryland which proudly calls itself a sanctuary state of some sort or other, while providing no sanctuary at all to any of its tax paying citizens, shoveling out driver licenses to anyone able to stand up and breath, while many of Maryland’s failed cities and villages, allow illegal aliens to vote in elections. And Maryland is proud of it!
Yes, Maryland my Maryland is a doozy of a state alright. Just ask Senator Van Hollen how the mixed drinks are at the illegal alien prisons in South America. Just don’t ask how the legal citizens of Maryland are doing, he wouldn’t have any idea.
-Oddball
When people ask why I moved from MD, I tell them, ‘because I could.’ What a sick, depraved place. crime, filth, democrats, traffic, taxes, crap education, dysfunctional services – both public and private; horrible horrible place. Raskins and his ilk and the van hollens and others who have become wannabe raskins – JFC. Ugh.
Dear Prof Turley,
Oversight of Congress is like herding cats. In my view, there must be some area for reasonable limitations on the exercise of Executive authority. .. in the absence of well-funded cat herders.
People often underestimate how cunningly creative President Trump can be selling something – like ICE to an Eskimo. Take Alligator Alcatraz. That’s a very vivid description of the ICE facility in Florida. It’s a prison + alligators.
*btw, Russia/Putin has nine (9) days left to admit defeat in Ukraine (aka ‘Little Russia’) once and for all .. . and the clock is ticking.
“there must be some area for reasonable limitations on the exercise of Executive authority”
Amazing, I didn’t know that the executive branch was without oversight or limits. Two hundred and fifty years, and nobody but you thought of this. Quick, we better start showing up without warning at federal facilities and body slam federal officers!
>”Amazing, I didn’t know that the executive branch was without oversight or limits.” Anonymous#3957.000100100
Now you know. Better late than never. The Executive is almost completely lawless nowadays .. . think Joe Biden’s autopen and Trump’s Alligator Alcatraz.
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” ~ Karl Rove, aka The Turd Blossom
Your equivocation of Trump and Biden couldn’t be more incorrect. Nice try though. There’s nothing “lawless” about ICE detention centers, what was lawless was unilaterally and illegally letting in MILLIONS of illegal aliens. Now Trump has the hard part, getting sending them back home.
If Alligator Alcatraz is so terrible all the illegal aliens have to do is notify the agents they will self deport and avoid the “prison + alligators”.
And Putin does not have to admit “defeat” only agree to a cease fire and mean it.
“If Alligator Alcatraz is so terrible all the illegal aliens have to do is notify the agents they will self deport and avoid the ‘prison + alligators’.”
This is the what these dipwads refuse to understand, and you just nailed it. The whole point of the facility is deterrence. The fact these psychos want to do tours of the place just adds to the mystique, and makes the deterrence work even better. It’s just another own goal for leftists.
DG
In my view, there must be some area for reasonable limitations on the exercise of Executive authority.
Really? Fools like yourself said zip when O-dumber turned the IRS on Americans who were following their rights.
DG you fools have lost it. Now you are having fits over a young blond girl in Levies.
Please keep it up. It’s no wonder the polling for you fools is in the tank!
So if a judge upholds instant access for article 1 oversight of article 2 facilities, it would seem fair play for article 1 or 2 should be able to have instant access to article 3 court deliberations.
And that’s probably the one counterargument that will be guaranteed to kill this stupid idea in its cradle. Judges may not care too much about the rights of the executive branch, but they’ll definitely defend their own from this kind of assault. And I use the word assault deliberately, especially if soon-to-be-former Representative Monica McIver is around for the “oversight”.
From this lawsuit, it appears the “Representatives” reserve the right, at any time, without notice to invade and dissemble the government and legal process – regardless of the oath normally applied to Court Officers or elected officials. It presents in their case that the criminal complaint filed against Judge Hannah Dugan who was arrested on charges of impeding an immigration arrest and hiding a person to prevent his arrest were “no king” rights were unjustified because compliance with the rule of law they have just written is the law of the land, and therefore should be honored.
If so, maybe their logic is to extend those rights to those who believe they have any rights.
Ergo: This is a blatant support of the implicit individual right to enter, obstruct, obscure, and interfere with government and legal process (or even better, get their own brother-in-law out of prison when charged with murder and bribery), BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE IT, whenever they feel like it. Because, they are “Kings”, the rule of law doesn’t apply to them – nor the process of policy, government, or legal institutions.
To extend this position, these “Kings” should also have the right to break into and destroy government proceeding, government operations, and even legal jurisdiction ANY TIME THEY FEEL LIKE IT. And if you don’t believe that, you must be a “MAGA”.
Welcome to Progressive America (Sarcasm, obviously)
They sure didn’t complain when Republicans tried to visit J6 prisoners and were refused entrance.
That’s (D)ifferent
Well ya, this law in question does not apply. So different. Also you are a moron.
Yeah, we can’t do this thing called “extrapolation” now can we. I mean, you probably can’t with your room temperature IQ, but the rest of us do it all the time. Damn are you possibly the dumbest troll that we’ve seen here, and I include George in that.
What statutory text is applicable here?
It’s just more amazing every day to see how Democrats are “doubling-down”” on their TDS, refusing to acknowledge that they are on the wrong side of all of these 80/20 issues, which is why their poll numbers keep sinking lower and lower.
But stubbornly-staying on the wrong side of illegal immigration is the most puzzling of their symptoms.
Demanding to enter federal law enforcement facilities without notice is not fooling anybody. That started because they were fabricating stories about illegal alien criminals being treated poorly.
The great news about how our economy is doing should be enough to get more Republicans elected in the mid-terms, but these Democrat Marxists, Socialists and illegal alien advocates will certainly be a great help in writing Republican campaign commercials.
Poll numbers be damned, it is always right to be against fascism.
Nice talking point. Let’s ask President Harris how that worked out, she used that slur all the time. Go ahead, the phone number is 202-456-1414. Let us know how that works out of you.
Turley,
The notice requirement neither applies to members of Congress nor in the context of conducting oversight.
Are Sen. Angela Alsobrooks and four members of Maryland’s House delegation: Reps. Glenn Ivey, Johnny Olszewski, Sarah Elfreth and Kweisi Mfume, members of Congress?
Were they conducting oversight?
“The notice requirement neither applies to members of Congress nor in the context of conducting oversight.”
Absolutely untrue. You keep trying this lie but it’s still wrong.
“Were they conducting oversight?”
What committees are they on? Was there any ongoing investigation? If they didn’t schedule an appointment, they have no right to just show up. I don’t understand how anyone could be so stupid as to not get this.
Read the text of the appropriations bill that Turley cites and links to above.
Can you name a single individual Turley references above that is NOT a member of Congress?
What provision of the bill limits the oversight exception to specific members of Congress who serve on certain committees? If that doesn’t exist, why make it up?
Would you please just stop already. You so-called argument was already eviscerated below. You’re just a time thief at this point.
This case should be handled by Judge Judy. Judy isn’t going to like this. Nope she won’t like it at all. Judge Judy has a fiery brand of justice.
These lunatics are just getting wackier and wackier by the day.
Look at the one below. I can almost see the sandwich boards hanging off of her as she screams on the sidewalk.
Not at all. They are getting their names and faces in the news, which is their objective.
But will it actually help any of them? Even in their smurf primaries? I have questions.
That they are, but they are still getting wackier by the day. They are dangerous and scary.
Professor Turley,
You misquoted Section 527. Please correct this egregious error.
This provision permits two classes of people to visit a DHS facility (1) “a Member of Congress” and (2) “an employee of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate designated by such a Member for the purposes of this section.”
Subsection (b) states that: “Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility . . . for the purpose of conducting oversight.”
Further, Subsection (c) states that, “WITH RESPECT TO INDIVIDUALS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (a)(2), the Department of Homeland Security may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a).”
Thus, the prior notice option does not apply to a member of Congress, and further, if the purpose of the visit is conducting oversight, subsection (c) in entirely inapplicable.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2882/text
If one of your students analyzed this legislative text in the way that your article does, what would the appropriate grade be?
Who are you exactly? Sorry, I’m going to go with the actual law professor over the anonymous internet loser and her crackpot theories, thanks.
This is supposed to be a legal blog.
JUST READ IT. A basic understanding of English should suffice. My law degree isn’t necessary for this one.
Sec. 527. <> (a) None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available to the Department of Homeland Security by this
Act may be used to prevent any of the following persons from entering,
for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for
the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house
aliens, or to make any temporary modification at any such facility that
in any way alters what is observed by a visiting Member of Congress or
such designated employee, compared to what would be observed in the
absence of such modification:
(1) A Member of Congress.
(2) An employee of the United States House of
Representatives or the United States Senate designated by such a
Member for the purposes of this section.
(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of
Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility
described in subsection (a) for the purpose of conducting oversight.
(c) <> With respect to individuals described in
subsection (a)(2), the Department of Homeland Security may require that
a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a
facility described in subsection (a).
Enjoy losing in court!
I see now that only applies to (a)(2) rather than just (a). So the government’s argument will be that they didn’t spend money “appropriated or otherwise made available . . . by this Act” (i.e., Public Law 118-47) to deny access. Is that right?
As if there are no ongoing costs to running a federal facility, or to provide security for said facility. If some nimrod leftist goes and starts turning door knobs, there’d better be someone with a badge and a firearm who shows up. And that person is not working for free.
Oldman, I replied below. I appreciate the attempt, but given that this appropriations bill funds DHS staffing and facilities, that would be a tall order.
I realize DHS is spending money, but my question has to do with whether it was money appropriated by PL 118-47. That law was passed in March 2024, and in the interim there have been other acts and continuing resolutions: CR of 9/26/24, P.L. 118-83 covering spending through December 20, 2024, which was extended through March 14, 2025, by P.L. 118-158, enacted on December 21, 2024, and a CR for FY2025 enacted in March 2025, as P.L. 119-4. But I would not know how to trace the source of the money spent to keep DHS running on the dates when these incidents occurred. I’m sure someone does.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48115
FY2025 CR funds all went to disaster relief
Gosh, spend money ? I think it means bribery or extortion. Imo
Anon – the politicians didn’t request access 24 hours in advance. Look at subsection (c).
OLDMAN, subsection c is above. Does it apply to members of Congress?
Ageism? So chic of you. Screech harder please, we can’t hear your crazy rants so well when you’re still wearing that covid mask.
No, I realized my mistake (see my comment at 10:36). But my question remains, were they spending money made available under P.L. 118-47 to deny access? If not, then the provision doesn’t apply, right? Or am I still missing something?
This appropriations bill covers facilities and staffing for the Department of Homeland Security. How would they make such a farfetched claim in good conscience?
You’re only missing the desperate attempt of an idiot totally out of her depth to understand the laws at hand here. Best to ignore her and hope that she doesn’t get elected to Congress in some gerrymandered joke of a district in some blue hellhole state.
*. “Am I missing something”. Perhaps the incredible sense of entitlement. The entitlement to go, to do whatever I, the congress person, want on a whim. I am entitled by my rank among the commoners as Senator, as House Representative.
You’re missing that part, OMFK. It’s a vulgar interpretation used by government officials from cities, counties, districts, States and federal officials.
The basic rule of knock before entering the door, telephone or text before arriving escapes them in their personal lives no doubt. It’s also contained within due process, the idea of it. The idea of catching you with dishes unwashed is un-American.
Imo
“. . . objected that the sign said “Welcome,” but they were not welcomed.”
I hate when that happens.
The sign on the restaurant door says “Welcome.” I show up at 4 am, but I can’t get in. Don’t they know who I am?
Dem politicians know they have no legal authority to just enter one of these facilities on a whim. But there’s one other thing they know: their party’s popularity is at an all-time low, and they have to do something. So they throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. This is just one of the many pieces of spaghetti they are throwing at the wall, and it doesn’t seem likely to stick.
Did you actually read 527(a)?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2882/text
Do you agree with Turley’s misquoting of it? Clearly, oversight is exempt from advance notice. Advance notice also does not apply to members of Congress. You claim to be a lawyer, right? In what world could Turley’s reading be appropriate?
Anonymous internet loser and a crackpot theory on one side. Distinguished, published law professor on the other. Tough call, but I think that I’ll go with Turley on this one, thanks.
JUST READ IT. A basic understanding of English should suffice. My law degree isn’t necessary for this one.
Sec. 527. <> (a) None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available to the Department of Homeland Security by this
Act may be used to prevent any of the following persons from entering,
for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for
the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house
aliens, or to make any temporary modification at any such facility that
in any way alters what is observed by a visiting Member of Congress or
such designated employee, compared to what would be observed in the
absence of such modification:
(1) A Member of Congress.
(2) An employee of the United States House of
Representatives or the United States Senate designated by such a
Member for the purposes of this section.
(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of
Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility
described in subsection (a) for the purpose of conducting oversight.
(c) <> With respect to individuals described in
subsection (a)(2), the Department of Homeland Security may require that
a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a
facility described in subsection (a).
Uh huh. Go with that. You’ll lose in court.
English is apparently very difficult.
What does the dependent clause “With respect to individuals described in subsection (a)(2)” mean?
The answer is clearly ….. that the rest of the sentence – i.e., the notice requirement that Turley cites – does NOT APPLY to (a)(1).
And who, praytell, is identified as (a)(1)? MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
Screech harder, use more capital letters, call people names, that always makes your non-argument stronger. You’re being hysterical, maybe you should find your fainting couch.
Do you have an actual response to the argument made, or do you instead simply wish to attack me personally?
I’ll give you an answer when you stop attacking everyone else on this blog. Your lack of self awareness is stunning.
No legislation by the legislative branch that usurps and exercises any facet, aspect, degree, or amount of the executive power of the executive branch is constitutional.
OldManFromKS,
That right there. The real funny thing is, they forgot to cook the spaghetti first.