A federal judge on Feb. 2 blocked a renewed attempt by President Donald Trump's administration to bar members of Congress from making unannounced visits to immigrant detention facilities. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., said the U.S. Department of Homeland Security could not revive the policy, which the judge had blocked in December, by claiming it is using a different source of funding to implement it. The ruling came in a lawsuit by 13 Democratic members of Congress. Trump, a Republican, has made a crackdown on legal and illegal immigration a centerpiece of his second term. That has included a mass deportation campaign and the detention of thousands of people awaiting legal proceedings. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in a January 8 memo mandated that members of Congress request access to detention centers at least seven days in advance, citing "significant and sometimes violent incidents." Cobb last month had blocked an identical policy adopted in June from being implemented using resources funded by the department's general annual budget, such as for staff and equipment. She said that under federal law, members of Congress have broad authority to conduct oversight at detention centers. Noem in the memo said the agency would instead use part of the $29 billion earmarked for immigration enforcement efforts in Trump's 2025 tax cut and spending legislation. Cobb in December said that funding was not subject to the same legal limitations as money that comes from the general budget. But on Monday, the judge said the Trump administration had not shown that the policy could be implemented and enforced using only the earmarked funds. "At least some of these resources that either have been or will be used to promulgate and enforce the notice policy have already been funded and paid for with restricted annual appropriations funds," Cobb wrote. Cobb, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, blocked the policy pending further litigation. The Democrats who filed the lawsuit are represented by Democracy Forward, which is involved in dozens of legal challenges to Trump administration policies. Skye Perryman, the group's president and CEO, in a statement said Cobb's ruling restores the ability of Congress to expose dangerous conditions at detention centers. The lawmakers come from California, Colorado, Maryland, Mississippi, New York and Texas.

A federal appeals court judge has dismissed a judicial misconduct complaint by U.S. Justice Department against a judge who clashed with President Donald Trump's administration over its move to deport several Venezuelans to El Salvador. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took the rare step in July of announcing the complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., alleging he made improper comments about Trump during a meeting of the judiciary's policymaking body, the Judicial Conference. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a newly-released order dated December 19 said the alleged statements, even if true, would not violate judicial ethics rules. The Justice Department did not respond on Saturday to requests for comment. Boasberg, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, declined to comment. Bondi announced the complaint days after Boasberg said he might initiate disciplinary proceedings against Justice Department lawyers for their conduct in a lawsuit brought by Venezuelans challenging their removal to a Salvadoran prison. Boasberg in April concluded the administration appeared to have acted "in bad faith" when it hurriedly assembled three deportation flights on March 15, at the same time that he was conducting emergency court proceedings to assess the effort's legality. The DOJ's complaint focused on comments attributed to Boasberg by the conservative media outlet The Federalist during a meeting of U.S. Judicial Conference in March that was attended by Chief U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. The Justice Department alleged Boasberg expressed his concern to Roberts and others that the administration would disregard court rulings and trigger "a constitutional crisis." The DOJ argued those comments ran afoul of the judicial code of conduct, and that Boasberg wrongly acted on his belief in the litigation over the Venezuelans, who were removed from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act. Due to potential conflicts among judges in D.C., Roberts transferred the complaint to the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit's Judicial Council. Sutton said the DOJ lacked proof Boasberg made such statements, which even if uttered would not be improper during the judicial policymaking body's closed-door meeting. "In these settings, a judge’s expression of anxiety about executive-branch compliance with judicial orders, whether rightly feared or not, is not so far afield from customary topics at these meetings—judicial independence, judicial security, and inter-branch relations—as to violate the Codes of Judicial Conduct," Sutton wrote.

A U.S. judge on Jan. 29 said Bank of America must face part of a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of knowingly aiding Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking by providing banking services to the disgraced late financier. The judge, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan, also dismissed a similar lawsuit against Bank of New York Mellon. Rakoff said Epstein's victims may pursue two claims accusing Bank of America, the second-largest U.S. bank, of knowingly benefiting from Epstein's sex trafficking, and of obstructing enforcement of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The judge rejected four other claims in the lawsuit, including that Bank of America participated in and aided Epstein's sex trafficking, and that it negligently failed to protect victims or refrain from "non-routine" banking services. Bank of New York Mellon, the world's largest custodial bank, won dismissal of the same six claims. Rakoff plans to issue an opinion by Feb. 13 explaining his reasoning. A trial for Bank of America is scheduled for May 11. Bank of America said it was pleased that its case was narrowed, adding: "We look forward to a full review of the facts." BNY said its dismissal "reinforces that BNY had no involvement in Epstein's crimes." The lawsuits were filed in October by a Florida woman known as Jane Doe on behalf of herself and other Epstein accusers. Doe said that despite widespread knowledge of Epstein's misconduct, both banks did business with him until his arrest in July 2019 because they considered making money a higher priority than protecting victims. David Boies, a lawyer for Doe, said he looked forward to the Bank of America trial and planned to appeal the BNY decision. Bank of America's lawsuit included previously publicized accusations concerning Epstein's business ties with prominent people, while BNY's lawsuit included an accusation that the bank processed hundreds of millions of dollars of wire transfers on Epstein's behalf. The lawsuits also accused both banks of failing to file timely suspicious activity reports with the U.S. Treasury Department. In seeking a dismissal, Bank of America said that Doe "at best" alleged that it banked high-net-worth clients affiliated with Epstein, which it called "insufficient," and that she did not identify any law enforcement investigation that it intentionally obstructed. Doe's lawyers have brought other lawsuits on behalf of Epstein accusers. In 2023, they reached settlements of $290 million with JPMorgan Chase and $75 million with Deutsche Bank, two of his main banks. Neither bank admitted wrongdoing. Rakoff approved both settlements. Epstein died in a Manhattan jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. New York City's medical examiner ruled the death a suicide.