D.N.N. v. Jeremy Bacon, et al.

D.N.N. · United States District Court for the District of Maryland · December 9, 2025 · No. 1:25-cv-01613-JRR

Summary

The opinion addresses the Government’s partial motion to dismiss claims challenging conditions in ICE holding rooms operated by the Baltimore Field Office. The court rejects the mootness challenge, addresses whether an ICE waiver of a 12-hour holding limit constitutes final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and considers due process and access-to-counsel claims. The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Holdings

  1. The transfer of the named plaintiffs out of the Baltimore Hold Rooms did not moot the putative class claims because the claims fell within the class-action relation-back exception for inherently transitory claims.
  2. The Baltimore and nationwide waivers of ICE's 12-hour hold-room utilization limit constituted final agency action reviewable under the APA.
  3. Plaintiffs did not state a Fifth Amendment substantive due process claim based solely on the Accardi doctrine, and Count II was dismissed.
  4. Although the Accardi-based Fifth Amendment claim was dismissed, plaintiffs could rely on the Accardi doctrine in support of their APA claim.
  5. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that restrictions on communication with counsel, attorney visits, and private telephone calls violated their statutory and Fifth Amendment rights to retain counsel, so the access-to-counsel claim survived dismissal.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the named plaintiffs' transfer out of the Baltimore Hold Rooms rendered the putative class claims moot.
  2. Whether ICE's waiver of the 12-hour holding-facility limit was a discrete and final agency action reviewable under the APA.
  3. Whether plaintiffs stated a Fifth Amendment substantive due process claim based solely on the Accardi doctrine.
  4. Whether plaintiffs could rely on the Accardi doctrine in support of their APA claim despite the directive's characterization as an internal policy.
  5. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged that restrictions on mail, attorney visits, and private telephone calls violated their statutory and Fifth Amendment rights to retain counsel during removal proceedings.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (25)

  • Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency, 857 F.3d 193, 208 (4th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Jonathan R. by Dixon v. Justice, 41 F.4th 316, 325 (4th Cir. 2022)(followed)
  • Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 76 (2013)(followed)
  • Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199, 205 (4th Cir. 2024)(followed)
  • Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 586 U.S. 9, 22-23 (2018)(followed)
  • City of New York v. United States Department of Defense, 913 F.3d 423, 430-32 (4th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64-65 (2004)(followed)
  • Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997)(followed)
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. 590, 591, 598 (2016)(followed)
  • United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…