ICE Detention Oversight: Padilla, Costa Denied Entry

A fight over ICE detention oversight moved from a Washington courtroom to a detention center entrance in Kern County this week, after Sen. Alex Padilla and Rep. Jim Costa, both California Democrats, were refused entry to the Golden State Annex in McFarland on Monday, Nov. 2. Staff at the privately run facility did not cite a notice requirement; they said no ICE officer was on site to let the lawmakers in, an explanation that raises a new question about what Congress’s guarantee of access to detention centers actually covers.

The timing matters. A day later, a federal appeals court heard the government’s appeal over DHS’s seven-day notice rule for congressional visits. Monday’s denial rested on different grounds, at a facility whose population more than tripled between 2023 and 2025, according to California’s attorney general.

What happened at the gate

Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary immigration subcommittee, and Costa arrived unannounced at about 11:30 a.m., KERO 23ABC reported. Facility officials said no ICE agents were present to admit them, according to Padilla’s office and The Bakersfield Californian; KERO reported they were told officials from ICE’s Fresno office had to be on site first.

GEO Group, a Florida-based private detention company, runs the facility under contract with ICE. Costa told KERO that a staff member, asked for the legal basis, said only that he had been told not to allow a visit without ICE agents present. Padilla called that “not believable.” ICE did not respond to KERO, and GEO Group did not immediately respond to The Bakersfield Californian. Padilla’s office said it was his fifth unannounced ICE facility visit in a month.

Why an escort requirement is a different legal problem

Congress addressed visits by its own members in a spending rider. Section 527 of Division C of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118-47) bars DHS from using appropriated funds to prevent members of Congress or their staff from entering facilities that hold noncitizens for oversight purposes, and states that members cannot be required to give advance notice. DHS may require 24 hours’ notice from staff, but not from members.

House Democrats sued in 2025 over ICE’s seven-day notice policy, and a federal judge in Washington has repeatedly blocked versions of it. At the D.C. Circuit argument on Nov. 3, much of the debate concerned whether individual lawmakers can sue at all, Bloomberg Law reported.

An escort requirement is a different barrier. It asks for no notice, so it sits outside the policy the courts have been reviewing, yet the practical effect can be the same: no officer, no visit. Whether that counts as “preventing” entry under Section 527 is untested. Much may turn on whether the instruction came from ICE or from GEO; a standing order to wait for an ICE officer is more likely to be treated as agency policy than as a guard’s judgment call.

A facility that has grown fast

Under Assembly Bill 103 (2017), the California Department of Justice inspects facilities in the state that hold people for ICE. Its 2026 report, dated May 2026 and revised in June, documents fast growth.

Measure	2023 inspection	2025 inspection
Golden State Annex detainee population	159	569
Golden State Annex rated capacity	700
Golden State Annex average length of stay	Not reported	82.8 days
People detained at the seven facilities reviewed statewide	2,303	6,028

Source: California Department of Justice, 2026 immigration detention review under AB 103 (Golden State Annex inspections of May 2, 2023, and Sept. 23, 2025).

Based on the state’s figures, that is roughly a 258 percent increase at the Golden State Annex and about 162 percent statewide. The report also found people held in restrictive housing for 100 to more than 200 days, against a roughly 30-day limit that ICE’s detention standards generally set, and medical care that was often delayed as staffing failed to keep pace.

Padilla’s office also said more than 60 people have died in ICE custody since President Trump returned to office. That figure could not be checked against ICE’s death-reporting page, which on Nov. 4 listed no deaths after August 2025.

What comes next

The D.C. Circuit has no deadline. If it finds members lack standing, the notice case ends without a merits ruling, and an escort rule would face no court order at all. A merits ruling against the notice policy could support a new challenge to escort conditions, though that would likely require a new or amended complaint. The other route is Congress: Section 527 lives in annual appropriations, so whether it expressly covers on-site escort conditions is a question for the next DHS spending bill.

For families and attorneys of people held in Kern County, the immediate effect is one fewer outside check on conditions the state flagged in its last inspection. Related coverage: conditions litigation at an Indiana ICE facility, ICE re-arrests after habeas wins, the Supreme Court fight over mandatory detention and DHS claims about California ICE detainers.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds an LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Diego and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts