With the caveat that I am not an immigration lawyer, those all seem like serious legal violations.

People who are present in the country unlawfully are subject to more stringent limits on their personal freedom (in the colloquial sense, not the legal sense) than other folks: if you're in the country unlawfully, the government has the right to put you in civil detention at any time. That's not kidnapping, and it's not a violation of their rights - if you're present in the country illegally, you do not have any right to be free from civil detention.

However, even if you are in civil detention, you still have a number of due process rights that apply to anyone physically present in the country. My understanding is that having access to the federal courts to challenge your deportation (or even your detention), access to counsel (subject to the rules of the detention facility), and access to certain basic conditions of confinement are among them. If those are being denied, it would violate the constitutional rights of the folks there.

That said, though, the government is certainly going to argue that these are just logistical issues. That it's a new facility, and they're ramping everything up on the fly - so there will be problems and complications in scheduling things like attorney-client meetings and the like. Not sure the federal courts will really buy that, but I expect that's what they'll say.