A federal judge has ruled that the IRS can share immigrant tax data with ICE for criminal investigations, marking a significant win for the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement goals.
Quick Takes
- U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich denied a request to block the IRS from sharing taxpayer data with ICE for criminal cases.
- The ruling allows ICE to cross-check addresses of suspected illegal immigrants against tax filings, but only for criminal investigations, not civil deportation proceedings.
- Former acting IRS commissioner Melanie Krause resigned over the controversial data-sharing agreement.
- Immigrant-rights groups argued the policy violates privacy laws and will discourage tax compliance among immigrant communities.
- The decision aligns with President Trump’s broader immigration enforcement strategy.
Judge Denies Injunction Against IRS-ICE Data Sharing
In a pivotal ruling, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich has denied a preliminary injunction sought by immigrant-rights groups trying to block the IRS from sharing tax information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The lawsuit was filed by several organizations including Centro de Trabajadores Unidos against Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, arguing that undocumented immigrants paying taxes deserve the same privacy protections as citizens and legal residents. Judge Friedrich, who was appointed by former President Trump, determined that the Memorandum of Understanding between the two federal agencies does not violate the Internal Revenue Code.
The court specifically noted: “At its core, this case presents a narrow legal issue: Does the Memorandum of Understanding between the IRS and DHS violate the Internal Revenue Code? It does not.” This decision effectively allows the controversial information-sharing agreement to proceed, which permits DHS to request IRS confirmation of home addresses for illegal immigrants suspected of deportation order violations. However, the court clarified important limitations on this sharing arrangement.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS = CRIMINALS
Trump’s Migrant Hunt Digs Into the IRS and Social Security https://t.co/FEsCO8wlJr
Trump’s Migrant Hunt Digs Into the IRS and Social Security
PrintPosted on Monday, April 28, 2025|by Outside Contributor|15…— Wilda V. Heard (@drWilda) April 29, 2025
Criminal Cases Only, Not Civil Deportations
A critical distinction in the ruling is that the IRS can only share taxpayer data for criminal investigations, not for civil matters such as routine deportations. Court documents explicitly state that the “information will only be used by officers and employees of ICE solely for the preparation for judicial or administrative proceedings, or investigation that may lead to such proceedings.” This limitation was central to the judge’s decision to deny the injunction, as she found no imminent injury from information sharing restricted to criminal investigations.
The agreement allows ICE to provide the IRS with names and addresses of suspected undocumented immigrants for cross-checking against tax filings. ICE leadership has repeatedly emphasized that this information sharing will be used “strictly for the major criminal cases,” though critics remain skeptical about the potential for broader application. The court’s ruling acknowledges these limitations while allowing the data sharing to proceed within the specified parameters.
Internal Upheaval and Broader Implications
The decision follows significant internal turmoil at the IRS, most notably the resignation of former acting IRS commissioner Melanie Krause over this very data-sharing deal. The Treasury Department, now under Trump administration leadership, has voiced strong support for the agreement as an integral part of the administration’s immigration enforcement strategy. Tax information is generally considered confidential, with criminal penalties for improper sharing, which explains the intense scrutiny and controversy surrounding this arrangement.
DHS officials maintain that information sharing is essential for identifying public safety threats and potential terrorists, framing the cooperation as a matter of national security rather than solely immigration enforcement. However, immigrant advocacy groups argue that such policies could have far-reaching consequences beyond their stated purpose. They contend that fear of having tax information used for deportation proceedings may discourage immigrants from filing taxes altogether, potentially reducing tax compliance and increasing the burden on other taxpayers.
