Baltimore ICE Facility Lawsuit: Rulings, Orders, and AG Case

The Baltimore ICE facility lawsuit, D.N.N. v. Liggins, is a federal class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland challenging the conditions inside Immigration and Customs Enforcement holding cells at the George H. Fallon Federal Building in downtown Baltimore. On March 6, 2026, Judge Julie R. Rubin certified a class of everyone detained there now or in the future, found that ICE’s practices violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and issued a preliminary injunction setting hard limits on crowding, medical care, sanitation, and notice of rights while the case continues.¹²

What the Baltimore Facility Is

The hold rooms occupy space inside a federal courthouse in downtown Baltimore. ICE calls the site a “processing facility” rather than a detention center, and its own internal policy — Directive 11087.2 — caps confinement in such rooms at 12 hours. The rooms have a rated capacity of 56 people.³⁴

Court records showed those limits were routinely ignored. Only about 4% of people booked into the facility actually stayed less than 12 hours.⁵ ICE’s own internal records showed more than 3,200 people had been detained in the cells in the first ten months of 2025.¹

Who Sued and What They Alleged

The Amica Center for Immigrant Rights (formerly the CAIR Coalition) and the National Immigration Project filed the suit on May 14, 2025, on behalf of two women who had been held in the Baltimore cells, both long-time Maryland residents. The complaint named the acting Field Office Director of ICE Baltimore, Vernon Liggins, along with the Secretary of Homeland Security, ICE itself, the Attorney General, and other officials. It alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.⁶³

The conditions described in the pleadings and supporting declarations were the core of the case:

Overcrowding above the 56-person cap for more than half the period between February and October 2025, with the population reaching as high as 123 — more than double capacity. At full capacity, each person had roughly 10 square feet of floor space.⁴⁷
Over 95% of detainees held past the 12-hour internal limit, and 27% held longer than 72 hours, with some kept for days or weeks.⁸
People sleeping on concrete floors, sometimes sitting up because there was not room to lie down, with only thin aluminum blankets. Some blankets were reportedly contaminated with feces, lice, urine, and vomit.⁴
No on-site medical staff. Sworn declarations described denials of medication for leukemia, HIV, diabetes, and high blood pressure. One person with a brain tumor was allegedly denied a medical appointment and medication for more than 10 days. A diabetic detainee was denied insulin, triggering a medical crisis.⁷
Windowless cells with no clocks or calendars, lit around the clock. A single toilet in each cell separated only by a mid-height privacy wall. No showers. Rooms holding 20 or more men in roughly 12-by-12-foot spaces.⁹⁸

A February 2025 internal memo from ICE’s own Deputy Field Office Director had warned that the lack of medical staffing “could potentially lead to liability issues or, in the worst-case scenario, fatalities.”⁴

The case did not win relief on its first try. In July 2025, Judge Rubin denied an initial motion for class certification and a preliminary injunction, finding that the two original plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives and that their individual claims had become moot after they were transferred out of the Baltimore cells. The plaintiffs amended the complaint, added a third plaintiff proceeding under the pseudonym Edward Doe, gathered more evidence, and renewed the motions.¹⁰⁸

What the Court Found

On March 6, 2026, Judge Rubin certified a class defined as “all persons who are now or in the future will be detained at the Baltimore Hold Rooms,” and granted a preliminary injunction. The court found that conditions in the hold rooms “woefully fail to comport with contemporary standards of decency” and amounted to “unconstitutional punishment” in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The surviving claims addressed deprivation of sleep, hygiene and sanitation, medical care, food and water, and access to counsel.¹⁸

The court rejected the government’s argument that overcrowding and resource constraints amounted to “exceptional circumstances” justifying the conditions, writing that the circumstances were “entirely of their own making.” The judge drew on ICE’s own records, expert reports, sworn detainee declarations, video footage, and firsthand accounts from elected officials who had toured the facility.⁸¹

What ICE Has Been Ordered to Do

The preliminary injunction sets specific, enforceable requirements that apply while the litigation continues:

Each detainee must have at least 31 square feet of personal space, excluding the area within eight feet of a toilet. In practical terms this caps the facility at 56 people.²¹¹
A basic medical screening within 12 hours of arrival, covering mental and physical illness, injury, communicable diseases, and disabilities. Continuity of prescription medication within 24 hours. Detainees may possess personal inhaled medication, and must have access to over-the-counter pain medication and emergency hospital care.²
Hold rooms cleaned thoroughly at least once daily, with daily access to soap, towels, toilet paper, oral hygiene items, and feminine hygiene products.²
Written notice of these rights in English and Spanish within one hour of arrival, with interpretation services for those who need them.²
A prohibition on retaliation against anyone who reports violations of the order.
Written compliance procedures and a compliance certification filed with the court within 60 days. The order was to be transmitted to all relevant ICE personnel within 72 hours.²

The injunction is preliminary, not final. It governs ICE’s conduct at the Baltimore hold rooms while the merits of the case continue to be litigated.

How ICE Responded

During the preliminary injunction proceedings, the government argued that the requested order “would impede its progress to conduct immigration enforcement.” Judge Rubin rejected this, saying her order “merely would require that it be done within the confines of the Constitution.”¹¹

An ICE spokesperson publicly disputed the allegations, calling the site “a processing facility not a detention facility” and calling claims of overcrowding and substandard conditions “false.” The agency said it provides food, water, blankets, and hygiene products, and claimed to maintain “higher detention standards than most U.S. prisons.” The spokesperson described the agency’s medical care as “the best healthcare than many aliens have received in their entire lives” and said “being in detention is a choice,” pointing detained individuals to the “CBP Home App” to accept “$2,600 and a free flight to self-deport.”⁴

Shortly after the ruling, a delegation of officials who visited the facility found it empty, and it was not clear how many people ICE was detaining there when the order took effect.¹²

The Maryland Attorney General’s Parallel Records Case

A separate state-driven case is running alongside the class action. Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown opened a civil rights investigation into the Baltimore facility in late January 2026, through the Civil Rights Division and Federal Accountability Unit, focused on patterns of overcrowding, denial of medical care and basic needs, and lack of access to legal counsel.¹³

On January 30, 2026, the Attorney General’s office issued an administrative subpoena to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security seeking records about conditions, detainee demographics, and the legal basis for individual detentions. ICE denied the subpoena on February 25, 2026, calling the requests “too broad, burdensome and violated privacy protections.” After ICE then indicated it would need until April 6 even to determine whether it could produce anything, the Attorney General filed a federal lawsuit on March 10, 2026, to compel compliance, alleging that ICE’s refusal was “unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious” and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.¹⁴¹³

Where Things Stand

The class action remains active. The March 6, 2026, preliminary injunction is in effect, and ICE is required to file a compliance certification within 60 days of the order.² The underlying merits litigation continues, with discovery complicated by a government shutdown.¹⁰ The Attorney General’s records lawsuit is also pending. As of reporting in March 2026, representatives from DHS and ICE did not respond to requests for comment on the ongoing matters.¹¹

1
National Immigration Project. Federal Court Orders ICE to End Inhumane Conditions for Immigrants in Baltimore’s Courthouse Holding Cells
2
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. D.N.N. et al. v. Liggins et al., Order
3
Amica Center for Immigrant Rights. Immigration Advocacy Groups Sue ICE on Behalf of People Held Illegally in Inhumane Conditions in Baltimore Holding Cells
4
WBAL-TV. Maryland Sues ICE Over Baltimore Field Office Hold Cell Conditions
5
WYPR. Maryland Lawmakers Tour ICE Facility, Decry Overcrowding
6
National Immigration Project. Immigration Advocacy Groups Sue ICE on Behalf of People Held Illegally in Inhumane Conditions
7
WMAR-2 News. Judge: Baltimore ICE Hold Rooms Violated Fifth Amendment, Orders Immediate Limits on Detainees
8
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. D.N.N. et al. v. Liggins et al., Memorandum Opinion
9
The Daily Record. ICE Detainee Lawsuit Baltimore Conditions Violations
10
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. D.N.N. v. Baker
11
Maryland Matters. Maryland Ramps Up Legal Action Against Federal Immigration Facilities
12
The Daily Record. ICE Hold Room Baltimore
13
Maryland Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Brown Files Lawsuit to Force ICE to Turn Over Records
14
CBS News Baltimore. Maryland Lawsuit ICE DHS Immigration Detention Facility