Federal judge orders ICE to cap detainee numbers at Baltimore holding rooms amid overcrowding lawsuit

Court order targets crowding at ICE’s downtown Baltimore holding rooms

A federal judge has ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to limit how many people it holds inside the agency’s Baltimore holding rooms, a set of temporary detention cells located within the George H. Fallon Federal Building downtown.

The ruling is the latest development in ongoing litigation over conditions inside the facility, which is used by ICE’s Baltimore Field Office to hold people in civil immigration custody pending transfer, release, or removal-related processing. The holding rooms are not a long-term detention center and have been at the center of allegations that detainees were kept for extended periods in crowded spaces without adequate sleeping arrangements and basic necessities.

What the lawsuit alleges

The underlying case was filed on behalf of two women who were detained in the Baltimore hold rooms in May 2025 and later sought emergency relief and broader class-wide remedies. Court filings in the case describe claims that people were held beyond the time periods the facility is designed to accommodate and that conditions did not consistently provide adequate rest, sanitation, and access to necessities while in custody.

The case also raised questions about detainees’ access to attorneys and phones, and whether operational practices at the Baltimore site comply with federal standards and constitutional due process requirements for civil detainees.

• The holding facility operates inside a federal office building and includes multiple cells, with the largest rooms designed for dozens of people.
• The litigation centers on alleged overcrowding and the effects of crowding on sleep, hygiene, and access to basic services.
• ICE has argued in court that the holding rooms are essential to its ability to process arrests and transfers in the region.

What ICE has said about operations and medical care

In court declarations, ICE officials have described the Baltimore holding area as consisting of sex-segregated cells with stated maximum capacities. ICE has also outlined procedures for medical needs, including transporting detainees to nearby hospitals when medication or emergency care is required.

The agency’s broader position in the case has emphasized that the Baltimore holding rooms are intended for short stays and function as a processing point, while acknowledging that operational constraints and transfer logistics can affect how long individuals remain there.

Broader oversight and policy context

Concerns about conditions at the Baltimore facility have drawn sustained attention from Maryland’s congressional delegation and state officials, including requests for more detailed information about crowding, length of stays, and health and safety conditions inside the building. Oversight disputes have also played out in federal court in separate litigation over access for members of Congress to conduct unannounced visits to federal detention facilities.

The court’s order to cap detainee numbers focuses on crowding as a central operational issue, while the underlying case continues to test how ICE’s holding-room practices align with governing standards for civil detention.

Additional proceedings are expected as the case continues and as the agency responds to court-ordered limits on capacity at the Baltimore holding rooms.