Judge Slams Chicago ICE Facility as Disturbing and Unconstitutional

(CHICAGO, ILLINOIS) A federal judge sharply criticized conditions at the Broadview ICE facility in suburban Chicago, calling detainees’ accounts

“disturbing,” “disgusting,” and “unconstitutional”

during court proceedings examining alleged inhumane treatment and unlawful conditions. The judge signaled that a temporary restraining order was likely, a move that could force immediate changes at the detention site while a broader lawsuit proceeds.

The lawsuit, filed by the MacArthur Justice Center and the ACLU of Illinois, describes severe shortages in basic necessities, including inadequate beds, showers, and food for people held at the Broadview ICE facility. Attorneys for the plaintiffs also accuse U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials of denying detainees access to their lawyers, raising alarms about due process for people fighting deportation or seeking release. Two Illinois men originally from Mexico are among those suing the federal government, alleging detainees are being treated

“like animals,”

according to their filings.

The judge’s use of the words “disturbing,” “disgusting,” and “unconstitutional” underscored how quickly conditions inside the facility have escalated into a legal crisis for federal authorities in the Chicago area. The threatened temporary restraining order would aim to halt practices the court finds unlawful while the case unfolds, adding urgency to concerns about inhumane treatment and unlawful conditions described in detail by the plaintiffs.

Lawyers from the MacArthur Justice Center and the ACLU of Illinois say their investigation found detainees sleeping without adequate beds, going without regular access to showers, and not receiving sufficient food. They also allege that ICE officials have restricted or blocked meetings with attorneys, a barrier that can break the link between detainees and the legal process that determines whether they can remain in the United States. Those allegations—paired with the judge’s statements—put federal officials on notice that the court expects swift action if documented violations continue. The lawsuit presents a direct challenge to the agency’s handling of people in custody and draws a line between acceptable detention practices and what plaintiffs describe as inhumane treatment.

The dispute over conditions comes as the federal court has already intervened once at the site. In October 2025, a federal judge ordered ICE to tear down a fence that was erected outside the Broadview facility on September 22 and deemed illegally placed on a public street. The judge found the fencing improper after Broadview Mayor Katrina Thompson raised public safety concerns, warning of risks to Beach Street businesses, their customers, and first responders. The order to dismantle the barrier highlighted how actions around the facility have spilled into the surrounding neighborhood, complicating daily life and traffic for those living and working near the detention site.

Taken together, the judge’s condemnation of the accounts from inside and the earlier ruling on the illegally placed fence show a mounting judicial response to the Broadview ICE facility. The language used in court—“disturbing,” “disgusting,” “unconstitutional”—is rare in its force and signals potential for deeper oversight. While the court has not yet issued a final ruling on the lawsuit’s claims, the indication that a temporary restraining order is likely suggests the judge views the documented conditions as urgent.

The MacArthur Justice Center and the ACLU of Illinois framed the issue as a failure to meet even minimal standards for humane care, alleging that people held at Broadview endure shortages and barriers that undercut their ability to seek legal relief. The claim that detainees have been treated

“like animals”

adds to the weight of the filings and offers a stark framing of daily life inside the facility as described by those challenging the government in court. Allegations of inadequate beds and limited showers speak directly to health and dignity in detention, while reports of insufficient food point to a basic failure to provide for people in custody.

The accusations of blocked attorney access strike at the core of a detainee’s ability to challenge confinement or deportation. If detainees cannot meet with counsel, they can struggle to file paperwork, gather records, or present claims to relief. That concern cuts across immigration status and case types, affecting anyone held at Broadview who needs legal help to argue for bond, contest removal, or seek protection. The lawsuit’s description of unlawful conditions seeks to push the court to set firm rules that ensure people can talk to their lawyers and receive essential care while their cases are pending.

ICE’s detention system is governed by agency standards that set baseline expectations for housing, medical care, food, and access to counsel. The claims emerging from Broadview suggest a stark gap between those expectations and what plaintiffs say is happening on the ground. The court’s scrutiny will likely focus on whether the conditions meet or fall short of the agency’s own policies and broader constitutional protections. The agency’s detention standards are publicly listed on the ICE detention standards page, and the lawsuit effectively argues that the Broadview ICE facility has failed to live up to them.

The fence episode shows how conflicts around immigration detention can affect public spaces and local commerce. Erected on September 22 and later ordered taken down, the barrier became a flashpoint after local officials warned of hazards in a busy area around Beach Street. Mayor Katrina Thompson’s safety concerns highlighted that the debate over the Broadview ICE facility is not confined to what happens inside the walls; it also touches neighboring businesses, customers, and emergency response. The judge’s order in October 2025 to dismantle the fence underscored the court’s willingness to step in when actions around the facility cross legal boundaries.

For people inside the Broadview ICE facility, the practical stakes are immediate. Allegations of insufficient food and limited access to showers can quickly become health risks, especially in crowded settings. Reports of detainees lacking adequate beds raise questions about sleep, sanitation, and the spread of illness. Each of those alleged failures points back to the core claim of inhumane treatment, and each will likely be central to the court’s analysis as it considers whether to issue a temporary restraining order and what that order should require the government to do.

The judge’s condemnation of “unconstitutional” conditions ties the allegations to broader legal protections that apply to anyone held by the government. Even in civil immigration custody, people are entitled to safe housing, adequate nutrition, and the ability to consult with a lawyer. The lawsuit’s detailed claims about unlawful conditions will test how quickly a federal court can force a large agency to adjust practices at a single facility and, potentially, beyond.

If the court issues a temporary restraining order, ICE could be required to make rapid changes to housing, hygiene access, meals, and attorney visitation at Broadview. The earlier fence ruling suggests the court is prepared to act decisively when it finds the government has stepped over legal lines. For now, the harsh language from the bench and the record compiled by the MacArthur Justice Center and the ACLU of Illinois have put the Broadview ICE facility under an intense spotlight, with the judge warning that the accounts of life inside are

“disturbing,” “disgusting,” and “unconstitutional.”