The Department of Homeland Security on Monday challenged a federal judge's order requiring immediate improvements at the Baltimore ICE processing facility, calling the court's characterization of conditions 'false.'

U.S. District Judge Julie Rubin, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction Monday ordering ICE to either improve conditions at the Baltimore facility or find an alternative site to 'humanely' and legally hold migrants before transferring them to longer-term detention centers.

Rubin, in a 67-page preliminary injunction, sided with plaintiffs in ruling that conditions at the Baltimore holding center are 'unhygienic, unsanitary,' and ultimately unconstitutional. The judge concluded the conditions are 'unlawfully punitive' and reflect 'deliberate indifference to the health, safety, and medical needs' of detainees, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

What the Right Is Saying

DHS forcefully rejected the judge's characterization of conditions at the Baltimore facility. 'Illegal aliens in custody are provided food, water, blankets, and hygiene products,' a DHS spokesperson said, alleging that ICE 'has higher detention standards than most U.S. prisons that hold actual U.S. citizens.'

The department also pushed back on claims of inadequate medical care, stating that detainees receive 'comprehensive' health care including 'medical, dental, and mental health services as available, and access to medical appointments and 24-hour emergency care.'

'This is the best healthcare tha[t] many aliens have received in their entire lives,' the spokesperson added, rejecting claims made by plaintiffs and the judge as false.

What the Left Is Saying

Plaintiff lawyers and civil rights advocates have argued that ICE detainees are entitled to due process protections under the Fifth Amendment, citing Supreme Court precedent in Zadvydas v. Davis, which holds that constitutional protections apply to 'all persons' within the U.S., including noncitizens regardless of their legal status.

In her ruling, Rubin rejected the notion that ICE detainees and undocumented immigrants are not entitled to due process. 'The debated issue here is not defendants' legitimate governmental interest; it is that defendants apparently dispense with even rudimentary decent, humane treatment of civil detainees, and so too their constitutional rights as a result,' the judge wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other immigrant rights organizations have long argued that conditions at ICE holding facilities violate constitutional standards. Lawyers for plaintiffs alleged individuals with serious medical conditions including diabetes, high blood pressure, HIV, leukemia, and broken bones were denied medications or necessary medical attention.

What the Numbers Show

Government records cited in the judge's order show that between February and September 2025, just eight out of 3,250 detainees held at the Baltimore ICE facility had been transported to a hospital for medical needs.

Rubin's preliminary injunction runs 67 pages and addresses allegations including severe overcrowding, lack of medical screening, unsanitary holding conditions, and inadequate access to hygiene facilities.

The order applies to all current and future detainees at the holding facility operated by Baltimore's ICE Field Office. This marks one of several federal court actions targeting ICE detention conditions during the current presidential term.

The Bottom Line

The conflict between the judicial branch and the executive agency over immigration detention standards is likely to continue. Judge Rubin's order requires ICE to either improve conditions at the Baltimore facility or relocate detainees, with the department maintaining its position that current practices meet legal requirements.

This case is part of a broader pattern of federal judges issuing emergency orders related to ICE detention conditions. Legal observers say the outcome could establish precedent for how constitutional due process protections apply to immigration detainees in federal custody. The administration may appeal the ruling or seek to modify its detention practices to comply with court requirements while maintaining enforcement capacity.