Judge Demands ICE Justification: Man Detained Over ‘Dried Pinto Beans’ Claims Rights Violation

A federal judge in Utah has thwarted the Trump administration’s attempt to deport a man mistakenly accused of a drug-related crime. The case highlights ongoing judicial resistance against controversial immigration policies.

The judge’s nine-page decision presents a fresh perspective on the trend where district court judges push back against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efforts to redefine immigrant classifications for detention purposes. This case is one of many challenging these controversial strategies.

Lorenzo Chavez Rascon, the individual at the center of the case, successfully obtained a temporary restraining order. U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby, appointed by Barack Obama, ruled that emergency measures were essential to protect Chavez’s due process rights from being infringed upon.

Chavez and his family entered the U.S. in 2017, seeking asylum as he was still a minor. Amidst ongoing asylum proceedings, Chavez applied for a U-visa—designed for undocumented individuals aiding law enforcement, as noted by the court.

In February, U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) recognized his visa application as “bona fide.” This designation allows the government to grant deferred action status, effectively pausing any deportation actions while his case is pending.

In late February, Chavez was arrested by authorities in Utah over a suspected drug sale. That arrest proved unnecessary.

“However, the narcotics involved in the suspected sale were later determined to be dried pinto beans,” the court explains.

Still, ICE learned of the arrest and used the opportunity to issue an immigration detainer “for the jail to continue detaining Chavez so ICE could take custody,” according to the order.

On March 3, attorneys representing Chavez simultaneously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus – to secure his release – and a motion for a temporary restraining order – to keep ICE from deporting him and to secure his access to legal counsel.

Then, ICE detained him.

“While the court was reviewing the Original Petition, the state dismissed the charges against Chavez, and ICE took custody of Chavez from the Salt Lake County Jail,” the order notes.

The court makes short work of the underlying arrest.

“While Chavez was arrested by state police on charges related to selling narcotics (in and of itself grounds for detention and removal), Chavez was not charged by the State of Utah with any crime,” Shelby goes on. “The alleged narcotic proved to be pinto beans.”

To that end, because the initially alleged crime literally amounted to a pile of beans, the court says the government does not really have any actual reason to suggest that Chavez”s deferred action status “has been revoked or is expected to be revoked.” And that means his deportation is far from happening – if it ever comes at all.

From the order, at length:

Here, it appears that Chavez’s deferred action status makes removal unforeseeable, and therefore unreasonable. Chavez appears to have deferred action status from his February 2026 USCIS determination finding he presented a bona fide U-visa petition. Because there is currently a severe backlog of U-visa petitions, it is likely that he will remain in deferred action for many years to come. As such, his immigration proceedings and removal would certainly not be considered foreseeable.

In light of the faulty arrest and intact status, the “government has not yet identified a removable federal offense,” the judge notes.

“Deferred action may not be rescinded arbitrarily,” Shelby goes on. “Absent any such reasonable grounds for revocation, based on the record before the court, Chavez has met his burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits that the government is detaining him indefinitely while keeping him in deferred action status in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and the Constitution.”

The court goes on to explain why, at least for now, Chavez wins:

Chavez’s continued detention—if indeed unlawful—constitutes an irreparable harm…Here, Chavez alleges that his detention violates his rights of due process under the Fifth Amendment. “Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Chavez’s detention thus concerns a fundamental constitutional right, and he is also likely to prevail on the merits of his claim against the asserted constitutional violation. And throughout this process, he has been denied access to communications with his lawyer. Altogether, these injuries satisfy the requirement for irreparable harm necessary to obtain emergency relief

Ultimately, the court ruled on the temporary restraining order while setting tight deadlines to dispense with the habeas petition.

First, the judge issued a show cause order directing the DOJ to respond to the petition by the end of the day on Thursday. This means the government is being put on the back foot and must explain why the writ should not be issued. Then, the petitioner will have a chance to file a reply by Friday evening. Finally, if the judge has any remaining concerns after those responses are filed, a hearing will be scheduled.

In the meantime, ICE is prohibited from trying to deport Chavez and must provide “meaningful and timely access to communicate with his counsel within 24 hours of providing counsel notice of his location.”