US says shutdown ended lawmaker ICE facility visit requirement

[SunSeeker]

8. I know the problem. The article states it. How about offering a legal solution, counsel?

You are just restating what the Trump DOJ lawyers are arguing in court. How about offering something that helps us?

In the article, an administrative law professor offers the following helpful comments:

David A. Super, a Georgetown Law professor who focuses on administrative and constitutional law, called the Trump administration’s argument “remarkably aggressive” and said it would mean “appropriations riders will cease to have a great deal of meaning in many important settings.”Super said that normally the restriction would keep ICE from using any funds — or anything bought with those funds — from blocking congressional access.

It is “fairly unlikely” that denying entry to members of Congress would not use restricted funds, “because excluding someone requires you to use a computer that may have been bought with those funds, or put up a barrier that was bought with those funds, or threaten to arrest someone with a bullhorn that was bought with those funds,” Super said.

Super also said that in prior government shutdowns, the government has operated to largely keep the status quo, rather than assert broad new authority.

https://rollcall.com/2025/10/22/us-says-shutdown-ended-lawmaker-ice-facility-visit-requirement/

How about expanding on that, or offering other legal arguments that help us, instead of repeating Bondi's stooges?