Listen to the article
A federal court in Washington, D.C., has denied a request from immigrant advocacy organizations to block a controversial data-sharing agreement between the Internal Revenue Service and immigration authorities.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the plea for a preliminary injunction filed by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos and other nonprofits. These groups are challenging an agreement signed in April by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
The agreement permits U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to submit names and addresses of undocumented immigrants to the IRS for verification against tax records—a practice opponents argue could lead to increased deportations.
In the court’s decision, Judge Harry T. Edwards wrote that the nonprofit groups “are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim,” reasoning that the information being shared between agencies falls outside the scope of IRS privacy statutes.
When contacted for comment, representatives from Centro de Trabajadores Unidos did not immediately respond.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision on social media, calling it a “crucial victory” for the administration. “Deporting illegal aliens makes the American people safer,” Bondi stated in her post.
The data-sharing agreement represents a significant component of President Trump’s broader immigration enforcement strategy, which has already resulted in numerous deportations and workplace raids nationwide. The administration maintains that the policy is essential to fulfill the president’s campaign promises on border security and immigration enforcement.
The controversial nature of the agreement became evident last year when the acting commissioner of the IRS resigned in protest over the deal, highlighting deep divisions within the federal government regarding immigration enforcement tactics.
Recent court documents have revealed concerning implementation problems with the program. According to filings from earlier this month, the IRS mistakenly shared taxpayer information for thousands of individuals with the Department of Homeland Security in possible violation of privacy regulations.
A declaration from IRS Chief Risk and Control Officer Dottie Romo detailed that of approximately 1.28 million names submitted by ICE for verification, the IRS could only verify around 47,000. For fewer than 5% of those verified individuals, the agency provided additional address information to ICE, potentially breaching taxpayer privacy protections.
The data-sharing controversy occurs against the backdrop of intensified immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Critics argue that using tax information for immigration enforcement could discourage undocumented immigrants from filing taxes, potentially reducing tax compliance and revenue.
Immigration advocates have consistently raised concerns that such agreements undermine the confidentiality that has historically encouraged all residents, regardless of immigration status, to participate in the tax system. They warn that fear of deportation could push more immigrants into the shadows and away from formal financial systems.
Meanwhile, supporters of the measure contend that improved information sharing between federal agencies is necessary for effective enforcement of immigration laws and national security protocols.
The court’s decision represents a significant setback for immigrant rights organizations, though the underlying lawsuit challenging the legality of the agreement continues. The ruling allows the data-sharing practices to continue while litigation proceeds through the courts.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between immigration enforcement objectives and taxpayer privacy protections—a balance that will likely remain at the center of legal and policy debates in the months ahead.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
From a broader policy perspective, I’m concerned that this decision could erode trust in the tax system and make undocumented immigrants less likely to file returns and pay their fair share. Maintaining voluntary compliance is crucial for an effective tax administration.
That’s an excellent point. Discouraging tax compliance among vulnerable populations could have significant unintended consequences, both for government revenues and immigrant communities. The tradeoffs here deserve careful consideration.
As someone who closely follows developments in the immigration policy space, I’m disappointed but not surprised by this ruling. The current administration has repeatedly prioritized enforcement over other concerns. I hope advocacy groups will continue to challenge this data-sharing agreement through the courts.
I share your frustration. The ongoing legal battles over immigration policies highlight the deep divisions and competing priorities in this area. It will be critical for the courts to carefully balance legitimate enforcement needs with fundamental civil liberties.
I’m curious to hear more about the specific legal reasoning behind this ruling. Did the court find that the IRS-ICE data sharing is indeed authorized under current statutes, or are there broader concerns about the scope of executive power in this area?
That’s a good question. The court’s rationale would be helpful in understanding the legal framework at play here. Parsing the nuances of the ruling could shed light on the boundaries of data sharing between government agencies.
This is a complex and controversial issue. While data sharing between agencies can aid enforcement, it also raises concerns about immigrant privacy and potential misuse. I hope there are robust safeguards in place to protect taxpayer information and ensure fair treatment under the law.
Agreed, the balance between enforcement and civil liberties is delicate. Transparency and oversight will be crucial to ensuring this policy is implemented responsibly.