May 12 (UPI) — A federal judge ruled Monday that the Internal Revenue Service can share taxpayer data with immigration authorities to locate undocumented immigrants for deportation.
District Judge Dabney Friedrich, an appointee from President Donald Trump’s first term, denied a preliminary injunction filed by immigrant rights groups, who argued sharing information violated taxpayer confidentiality laws.
“Plaintiffs Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, Immigrant Solidarity DuPage, Somos Un Pueblo Unido and Inclusive Action for the City bring this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Internal Revenue Service from sharing personal tax information with the Department of Homeland Security for immigration enforcement purposes,” Friedrich wrote, adding “the court will deny the motion.”
The ruling is a win for the Trump administration and the president’s immigration agenda.
Last month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem agreed to allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to submit names of immigrants for cross-verification of tax records. Under the data-sharing deal, DHS can ask the IRS to confirm the addresses of suspected undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Friedrich said sharing information between federal agencies to enforce immigration laws does not violate confidentiality laws.
“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,” according to Friedrich’s order.
Last month, acting IRS Commissioner Melanie Kraus resigned over the data-sharing deal. Former acting IRS Commissioner Doug O’Donnell also refused to sign the agreement in February, before he retired.
While the IRS can share data to help in criminal investigations, the tax agency can not share data on civil issues or to help with deportations.
According to the Justice Department, the data-sharing agreement complies with the law because requests for IRS information will target only those under criminal investigation.
“Requesting and receiving information for civil enforcement purposes would constitute a cognizable injury, but none of the organizations have established that such an injury is imminent,” Friedrich wrote.
“The Memorandum only allows sharing information for criminal investigations … On this limited record, the court cannot assume that DHS intends to use the shared information to facilitate civil rather than criminal proceedings.”
