Reyes et al v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
ESGGAR REYES and FREDERICO REYES
VASQUEZ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOM ENFORCEMENT; KRISTI NOEM,
in her official capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security; and
MICHAEL BERNACKE, in his official capacity
as the Director of the Sale Lake City ICE field
office,
Defendants.
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
DECISION GRANTING IN PART
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
2:25-cv-01159
Judge Tena Campbell
Before the court is a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiffs Esggar
Reyes and Frederico Reyes Vasquez. (ECF No. 2.) Mr. Reyes Vasquez was arrested by
Defendant United States Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) on December 19, 2025.
(Compl., ECF No. 1 at ¶ 25.) His son, Mr. Reyes, asserts that despite multiple efforts, he has
been unable to reach ICE to obtain any information about his father’s detention. (Id.)
Specifically, Mr. Reyes maintains that his counsel, Alec S. Bracken, attempted to call the Salt
Lake City ICE field office on the number listed on ICE’s website—i.e., (801) 736-1200—but
that the phone automatically disconnected. (Id.)
In the meantime, Mr. Bracken filed a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of Mr. Reyes
Vasquez. (Id.) That petition is now pending before the Honorable Jill N. Parrish. See Reyes
Vasquez v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-1146. Judge Parrish ordered that Mr. Reyes Vasquez should not
Case 2:25-cv-01159-TC Document 3 Filed 12/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of
5

2
be transferred outside the District of Utah and set a hearing for the petition for Wednesday,
December 31, 2025. (Order to Show Cause, Dec. 22, 2025, ECF No. 4 in No. 2:25-cv-1146.)
Despite that order, Mr. Bracken asserts that Mr. Reyes Vasquez may have been removed from
the United States on December 23, 2025. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 26.)
Late yesterday, Mr. Bracken filed a complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining
order in the above-captioned action. (See ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Through counsel, Mr. Reyes and
Mr. Reyes Vasquez argue that ICE’s failure to maintain a functioning method for communication
is a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee, the First Amendment’s right to
petition, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 27–48.) The Plaintiffs
move the court to enter an order directing the Defendants to reconnect ICE’s public inquiry
phone line, to schedule a prompt hearing, and to grant any other relief the court deems just and
proper. (Id., Prayer for Relief.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants the court authority to issue a
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. “A temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction share the same standard.” Nunez v. Nunez, No. 1:13-cv-126-TS, 2013
WL 5230614, at *2 (D. Utah Sept. 12, 2013) (citation omitted). A plaintiff “seeking a
preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The likelihood-of-success and irreparable-harm factors are “the most
critical” in the analysis. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009).
Case 2:25-cv-01159-TC Document 3 Filed 12/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of
5

3
ANALYSIS
It is a foundational principle of American law that no person shall be deprived of liberty
without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. V. This protection “applies to all ‘persons’
within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). The Tenth Circuit has
also held that the “right to retain and consult with an attorney … implicates … clearly
established First Amendment rights of association and free speech.” DeLoach v. Bevers, 922
F.2d 618, 620 (10th Cir. 1990).
These rights are meaningless if it is impossible to locate a person who has been detained.
Regardless of whether Mr. Vasquez Reyes was lawfully detained—a question that is properly
before Judge Parrish and not presented here—and regardless of the ultimate determination of his
immigration status, the court finds that the Plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits that the First and Fifth Amendments require ICE to provide information
about the whereabouts of a detained person.
But mindful of the deference due to a coequal branch of government, and having not yet
heard from the Defendants, the court declines to make a further finding at this time about how
that information must be provided—for instance, whether ICE must maintain an active phone
line or provide up-to-date information on a website. The court notes with concern, however, that
the Plaintiffs’ assertions in this case appear to be correct. The court also attempted to call the
Salt Lake City ICE field office and was automatically disconnected. And the court could find no
information about Mr. Vasquez Reyes on ICE’s online detainee locator system.1 Mr. Vasquez
Reyes has effectively disappeared.
1 Available at: http://locator.ic.gov/odls/#/search (last accessed Dec. 24, 2025).
Case 2:25-cv-01159-TC Document 3 Filed 12/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of
5

4
Because the court finds that Mr. Reyes Vasquez has alleged an infringement of his First
Amendment rights, the court finds that he has established irreparable harm. See Elrod v. Burns,
427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of
time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”). Moreover, if Mr. Reyes Vasquez is or has
been deported before any information is provided about his whereabouts, it may be too late for
his attorney to adequately raise objections or defenses to his removal.
Finally, the court finds that the balance of harms and the public interest both favor the
issuance of a temporary restraining order to the extent that such an order directs ICE to provide
information about the whereabouts of a person it has detained. The court finds no way in which
ICE is harmed by this disclosure, and the public has an interest in ensuring that any person who
has been detained by the United States has access to an attorney and that the family of the
detained person is informed about that person’s location.
Accordingly, the court finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are entitled to
relief insofar as they are demanding information about Mr. Vasquez Reyes’s whereabouts. The
court will allow the Defendants an opportunity to enter an appearance and be heard before
making any further orders regarding the means through which this information must generally be
provided, such as through the maintenance of a functioning phone line.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The court GRANTS IN PART the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order. (ECF No. 2.) The court ORDERS the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs’ counsel with
information about Mr. Vasquez Reyes’s detention and whereabouts by Monday,
December 29, 2025. The court takes under advisement the remainder of the relief requested by
Case 2:25-cv-01159-TC Document 3 Filed 12/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of
5

5
the Plaintiffs. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to leave the Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order pending.
2. 	The court directs the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this order, via email, on the
United States Attorney for the District of Utah and the civil duty attorney for the United States
Attorney for the District of Utah (joel.ferre@usdoj.gov). The court directs the Assistant United
States Attorney handling this matter to email a copy of this Order to the Defendants.
3. 	The court sets a status conference in this matter on Wednesday,
December 31, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3.400.
DATED this 24th day of December, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
______________________________
Tena Campbell
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-01159-TC Document 3 Filed 12/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of
5