"[T]he First and Fifth Amendments Require ICE to Provide Information About the Whereabouts of a Detained Person"

ICE Salt Lake City apparently isn't answering its phone.

From Reyes v. U.S. ICE, decided Wednesday by Judge Tena Campbell (D. Utah) (note that the government has not yet appeared to tell its side of the story):

Before the court is a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiffs Esggar Reyes and Frederico Reyes Vasquez. Mr. Reyes Vasquez was arrested by Defendant United States Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) on December 19, 2025. 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. 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., [phone]—but that the phone automatically disconnected.

In the meantime, Mr. Bracken filed a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of Mr. Reyes Vasquez. That petition is now pending before the Honorable Jill N. Parrish. Judge Parrish ordered that Mr. Reyes Vasquez should not be transferred outside the District of Utah and set a hearing for the petition for Wednesday, December 31, 2025. Despite that order, Mr. Bracken asserts that Mr. Reyes Vasquez may have been removed from the United States on December 23, 2025.

Late yesterday, Mr. Bracken filed a complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order in the above-captioned action. 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). 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….

It is a foundational principle of American law that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law. 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 (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 (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. Mr. Vasquez Reyes has effectively disappeared.

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 (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….

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 the Plaintiffs. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to leave the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order pending.

When I called the phone number discussed above (which is indeed the one on the ICE site for the Salt Lake City Field Office) I likewise got immediately disconnected.

Alec Stephen Bracken (Contigo Law LLC) represents Plaintiffs.

 

Comments

[David Nieporent]

ICE under Trump seems to be deliberately playing a shell game with detainees, moving them around as rapidly as possible so as to make it impossible for their families or attorneys to find them. There was a woman in Maryland who is said by her attorney/family to be a citizen, but about who ICE claims otherwise; she was rushed out of Maryland to Louisiana, who the family — and apparently ICE — thought had been deported, but who they seem to have located in Texas.

[MaddogEngineer]

Yes [*shrugs*]

(If there was some specific law prohibiting this, I assume it would have been asserted by now. Not more general appeals to the First and Fifth Amendments. Not appeals to morality. The Immigration and Naturalization Act, as amended, is a stubborn thing. As people keep wanting to remind us, being in the country illegally isn't really a crime. So I remain confused why some want to apply criminal due process to a civil matter. Obviously I'm not confused, I'm playing along, enjoying people wanting to make their policy preferences judicially binding.)

[Katall]

Maybe because the prople are being held like criminals?

[David Nieporent]

I am not sure I understand what you just wrote; due process applies in both the civil and criminal contexts.

[SRG2]

Often enough no specific law is needed because the Constitution suffices.

[ReaderY]

Due process applies to civil matters. The Supreme Court first held it applied to immigration cases in the 19th Century. The amount of process due in an immigration matter is less than in a criminal case. But it is not nothing.

In addition to challenging the lawfulness of a deportation order, the Supreme Court has held that an immigrant can challenge an immigration related detention through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is part of the original constitution before any amendments, and standing alone prevents the government from making applying for a writ impossible.

I would suggest the Court decide this matter under the Suspension Clause of the original constitution. Making a writ of habeas corpus de facto impossible to apply for is a de facto suspension, separate from both the First Amendment and Due Process. Holding a detainee incommunicado and playing wack a mole with location are tantamount to de facto suspensions of the Writ.

[MaddogEngineer]

The due process owed during the criminal process is different than what is required in civil proceedings. I would have thought this uncontroversial. Because of the statutory removal of district court jurisdiction, aliens have limited (but not zero) opportunity to apply for the writ. Aliens absolutely can be detained without any criminal charges in a way that a criminal defendant potentially accused of a crime cannot.

I am reasonably sure that there are government/ICE abuses here. I will again say that almost every sob story I have read includes the factoid in the 27th paragraph that the detained alien has a final deportation order pending, the reason for the detention. Or alternatively, that the alien in the green card pipeline has a past criminal conviction which the government has decided to use as a reason to halt their application. AFAIK that is not a due process violation, or at least I have seen no one make a coherent case it is.

This neither a defense or criticism of the government moving detained aliens around. I merely continue to object applying criminal due process theory to a legal situation where it may not apply. I don't accept that an alien always has a due process right to ask for a writ of habeas corpus at any time, any place. As I understand the district court jurisdiction stripping of the INA, that is not the case. But I am also open to the idea that the law is an arse here, but not merely because Orange Man Bad. As well as there being a frivolous lawfare strategy by The Resistance™ open borders advocates, who would never agree to deport any aliens.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

What these idiots don't seem to understand is that politics is a popularity game where appearances matter more than substance. Playing games like this makes him popular with his base, but elections depend on the fence sitters, and enough shenanigans like this will push the fence sitters away from Trump.

The Democrats don't understand this either, and it's an open question which one is annoying the fence sitters most. I'd guess the Democrats have the hardest own-goals to stop (wokism, identity politics, pro-crime policies) compared to trivia like answering phones and keeping websites and paperwork up to date. But the fact that Trumpies can't even be bothered with the simple shit shows a general lack of competence everywhere.

Too bad they can't both lose. Even if the Democrats clog Congress after 2026, that's just mixing donkey and elephant shit together, when most people would rather not have either.

[Brett Bellmore]

That they can't both lose is WHY it's gotten so bad.

In the 70's and 80's third parties were starting to make a resurgence, and the incumbent parties pretended to "reform" campaign laws, while actually erecting numerous barriers to challengers. The whole point of which was exactly to make sure they couldn't BOTH lose.

But once the major parties can't both lose, they no longer have to be liked. They just need to convince enough people to dislike the other major party more. So they concentrate on tearing down the other side, not pleasing their own constituents.

Trump, as awful as he is at times, is actually a refreshing deviation from this: Awkwardly, using the worst means you can imagine, he's actually trying to deliver on his campaign promises. And leaving the work of making Democrats unpopular up to the Democrats themselves.

[David Nieporent]

In the 70's and 80's third parties were starting to make a resurgence, and the incumbent parties pretended to "reform" campaign laws, while actually erecting numerous barriers to challengers. The whole point of which was exactly to make sure they couldn't BOTH lose.

Still never happened.

[Brett Bellmore]

Still "I was there when it happened,"

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — If you thought that problem through, perhaps you would get that your take on it is based on an erroneous presumption—that somehow both existing parties ought to be beatable simultaneously by a single challenger. But given a political axis, however defined, and three parties each with its own publicly perceived location along that axis, no such outcome seems reasonable to expect. A newly-influential insurgent party perfectly positioned between the two established ones might draw alike from both, but still not reliably gain enough to beat either of them. The farther toward either existing party the insurgent went, the more it would assure the election of the party it was trying to beat, by splitting votes from the rival it more closely resembled.

In principle what you need to crack that problem might be two rival parties, each positioned to attack one of the existing ones. Given existing parties which had worn out their public support, it is easier to imagine a victory for one insurgent in a 4-party race, with each of the two existing parties under separate attack by a new rival featuring politics to steal votes only at its own end of the axis. Might take a few election cycles to get it done.

And it would not work at all if either of the new parties claimed to be a libertarian party. Voters understand that libertarians are crackpots without viable theories of government. I don't understand why a grievance-cherishing libertarian even cares about elections, given that elections are majoritarian political exercises which libertarians oppose on principle.

[Rossami]

re: "given a political axis" - Stop right there. That's a foundational premise of your analysis and it's flat wrong. Voters don't think in terms of a 'political axis' - voters think in terms of issues. Parties choose clusters of those issues and compete for voters. The only way you end up with a two-party system is if you first eliminate the option for a different, third bundle of positions to compete for voters - a position that is off the incumbent axis.

Since your premise is false, I won't waste time on your conclusions except to note that lots of countries and lots of political systems end up with many parties and no single political axis.

I'll also note that your logic, if it were true, would not be limited to politics but would also apply to cars, grocery stores, retailers, etc. yet to the extent that there is consolidation, it tends toward a minimum of three competitors, not two. In retail, the classic triad is low-cost / product innovation / customer intimacy.

[David Nieporent]

You're here right now and still get descriptions of current events and the reasons behind them entirely wrong, so I don't see any reason why you being there back then would make anyone think you'd be accurately recounting events.

It's an objective thing: was there a "resurgence" of third parties in the 70s and 80s? No. Was any member of the Big Two worried about them? No. Were there 'reforms' designed to prevent third parties from getting elected? No.

[y81]

Jimmy Carter was worried enough about John Anderson that he refused to participate in debates if Anderson was there. (So, you will recall, there was a debate with just Reagan and Anderson, before the powers that be agreed to a debate with just Carter and Reagan.) Perot was considered a threat by both parties. Indeed, some have argued that Perot pulled enough votes from Bush to make Clinton the winner. (As you will recall, Clinton won with only a 43% plurality, the lowest of any winner since Wilson.) Both of those candidates from the 1980s (and early 1990s), in short, had respectable showings, enough to worry the major parties. Since 1992, no third party has had anything like the same performance.

[Rossami]

Why does Trump care about pushing away the fence sitters? He can't stand for a third term and doesn't seem especially interested in the political prospects of his presumed successor. So why shouldn't he choose to be popular with the people who say they like him (and continue to write off the people who've openly said they'll continue to hate him regardless)?

And, yes, we need to find a way back to a situation where both parties can lose.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I have had several schemes, but forgotten most.

* Every elective position has to include NOBODY, and if NOBODY wins, nobody is elected, and "no taxation without representation" applies; no taxes in that district from that government. Symmetry would require no benefits either, but I like the idea of encouraging people to vote for NOBODY.

* Every election would include a rating for the outgoing incumbent, whether or not he's running for re-election: "Rate the incumbent's pension contribution for this last term, on a scale from 0/nothing to 10/double." In other words, if he's the best of a bad lot, voters can keep him but give him no pension credits, and maybe he and his party will take the hint.

[rswallen]

Because he still needs people who support his policies to be elected to Congress next year, lest he become a lame duck president?

[Incunabulum]

You say 'Trumpies' - but these are the rank and file and junior officers. These are not Trump appointees or people hired by Trump after a purge of ranks.

This is them *normally*.

You just never got up to look closely at what government was doing before Trump.

[John F. Carr]

Thank you for calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Your call is not very important to us.

[SRG2]

Please leave your name and number and a place where you can be located within the next day.

[santamonica811]

John,
Genuinely funny (and incredibly sad, at the same time, of course). December thread-winner. Alas.

[Brett Bellmore]

Can't really argue with the conclusion, anyway: You might debate how they're provided, but the government can never properly take somebody into custody and just make them disappear.

[MaddogEngineer]

Well, that is an interesting wrinkle regarding the writ of habeas corpus and the jurisdiction (or denial thereof) of federal district courts, isn't it?

[MaddogEngineer]

So does this mean the First Amendment is violated when the government is shutdown because of a lack of congressional appropriations, and no government workers are there to answer the phone? Maybe government shutdowns are unconstitutional.

[Longtobefree]

Well, given that the constitution requires a budget, and the legislators swear an oath to uphold that constitution, we could try to claim they are all in a conspiracy to violate our rights and put all 535 of them in jail.
(And the supreme court may one day rule the second amendment means what it says)

[David Nieporent]

The constitution does not require a budget.

[Botaglove]

If a government worker doesn't answer the phone does that mean you stay in prison because your lawyer and family can't find you? Then perhaps yes.

[y81]

Cue Josh Blackman to denounce arrogant federal judges purporting to tell the Trump administration how and when to communicate with the public. If John Roberts doesn't vacate this TRO immediately, he should resign.

[SRG2]

Of course, if Roberts does vacate the TRO, then he's showing courage...

[ReaderY]

Nice try - holding a prisoner completely incommunicado is merely making a decision about communicating with the public, as if somebody’s lawyer was just another member of the public like anyone else. And as if preventing a DETAINEE from communicating with anyonewas no different from a decision whether to issue a press release.

This level of deceitful propaganda is getting pretty close to the Nazis’ argument that, having stripped Jews of citizenship in 1935 (making them aliens) and then declaring them enemy aliens when war broke out in 1939, they were doing nothing more than exercising their right to deport enemy aliens, just like any other country at war, and no belligerent gets held responsible for what happens to enemy aliens once they are outside the official borders.

[Incunabulum]

NAZIS! NAZIS!

the problem here ReaderY is that you've been calling anyone you disagree with a racist Nazi misogynist for 20 years - the people you want to recoil from that term now just laugh at you when you use it.

[John 4]

I like how misogynist is just randomly thrown in there. I wonder what that is all about?

Anyway, anyone with a lick of sense can see the parallels. You have to have your head pretty far up your ass not to see what's obvious.

[Incunabulum]

Conspiracy theorists 'see the parallels' too.

And whether or not it's true is irrelevant to my point - you all have been screaming Nazi for so long no one cares anymore. You have literally given literal Nazis top cover with your overreactions.

[ReaderY]

If you don’t like being labeled a Nazi, may I suggest you consider not behaving like one? It would help.

[MaddogEngineer]

When did you stop beating your wife?

[y81]

You're getting a little carried away. No one has actually made the argument that responding to a detainee's lawyer is equivalent to issuing a press release. I only suggested, sarcastically, that Josh Blackman would make that argument.

Poe's Law strikes again.