ICE Hold Rooms
Executive summary
ICE "hold rooms" are small processing spaces where people arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement are kept after arrest and—according to multiple investigations and court filings—are increasingly used for days or weeks despite a prior 12‑hour policy, prompting lawsuits and judicial orders challenging conditions and access to counsel [1] [2]. Advocates, journalists and some judges report overcrowding, limited hygiene, poor lighting and medical neglect; ICE defends conditions as humane while courts and state lawmakers explore new accountability pathways [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. What are “hold rooms” and how ICE justifies them
ICE labels these spaces processing or hold rooms rather than detention centers, saying they are for short-term intake and transfer; that classification has been used to limit routine oversight and public access, even as members of Congress and advocates have sought visits and photographs [1] [7]. Agency statements defend treatment in specific instances and describe procedures as compliant, but public reporting shows ICE sometimes acknowledges limited privacy features and operational constraints in its responses to lawsuits [5].
2. Policy change: from 12 hours to 72 hours and its consequences
A June agency memo—and later public reporting—documented a waiver of the informal 12‑hour limit, permitting people arrested by ICE to remain in hold rooms for up to 72 hours; courts and advocates say that change corresponded with dramatic increases in average hold‑room stays at sites like Manhattan’s Federal Plaza and other offices [1] [2] [7]. Litigation has followed: judges have issued temporary restraining orders and injunctions establishing minimum standards for hygiene, bedding and confidential phone access where courts found likely constitutional violations [2].
3. Reported conditions: corroborated video, court findings and advocacy accounts
Investigations, viral video and courtroom declarations describe people sleeping on floors next to toilets, scarce food and hygiene supplies, excessive lighting or lack of daylight, and extended confinement that can aggravate medical problems—allegations echoed in multiple jurisdictions including Baltimore, New York and Central Islip [7] [8] [9] [3]. Civil rights groups and detained people’s testimonies have also alleged denial of timely medical care and disability accommodations, claims now central to class actions and federal rulings [4] [2].
4. ICE’s defense and the limits of public reporting
ICE has disputed the most extreme characterizations in legal filings and public statements, calling conditions humane in some instances and asserting compliance with policies; in some local responses ICE acknowledged features such as mid‑height privacy walls and limits on privacy for sinks and toilets while contesting claims about duration or severity [5]. Reporting cannot determine the full nationwide prevalence of the worst conditions because many hold rooms are off‑limits to journalists and lawmakers, and ICE’s classification of facilities narrows routine inspections [1] [7].
5. Accountability: courts, state laws and wider policy context
Federal judges have already imposed corrective orders at specific sites, requiring basic hygiene, bedding and confidential counsel access where they found probable constitutional violations [2]. Meanwhile, legal scholars and state lawmakers are exploring structural remedies—such as state statutes enabling suits against federal officers—that could fill accountability gaps and have begun to be adopted in places like Illinois, according to recent reporting [6]. These legal avenues sit against a backdrop of detention expansion, reduced discretionary releases and rising detainee mortality that advocates cite as the systemic context for prolonged hold‑room use [10].