A federal judge on Monday denied a preliminary injunction that sought to block a data-sharing agreement between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The agreement would allow ICE to access taxpayer address information from IRS records.
The lawsuit, filed by Public Citizen Litigation Group, Alan Morrison, and Raise the Floor Alliance against Trump Administration officials, aimed to prevent the IRS from disclosing taxpayer information to immigration enforcement authorities. While the judge declined to temporarily halt the agreement, the case remains ongoing.
In the ruling, the court concluded that sharing taxpayer address information is likely lawful as long as ICE uses it solely in support of criminal prosecutions. However, the court explicitly recognized that this narrow exception does not extend to civil proceedings, which include mass deportations. No taxpayer information has yet been shared under the agreement.
The defendants named in the lawsuit include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the IRS, Acting IRS Commissioner Melanie Krauss, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, DHS, ICE, and Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons.
READ: DHS Considers Arresting Congressional Democrats After New Jersey ICE Facility Confrontation
Following the ruling, Public Citizen Attorney Nandan Joshi, the lead attorney on the case, stated, “The court’s decision relies on the government’s representation that it would not use taxpayer data to support a mass deportation agenda. DHS and ICE must provide immigrants who have long relied on the IRS’s privacy an explanation of how it will prevent taxpayer information from being misused for civil immigration enforcement. We will be watching closely to make sure the government does not exceed the clear boundaries the court has set.”
Despite the denial of the preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs have vowed to continue their legal challenge, emphasizing the potential for misuse of sensitive taxpayer information in civil immigration enforcement proceedings.
The court’s recognition of the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings suggests that this aspect will likely be a key focus as the case progresses.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
