IRS can share data with ICE for immigration enforcement: US appeals court

The three-judge panel, comprised of Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Senior Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, and Circuit Judge Patricia Millet, ruled on Tuesday that the appellants "are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims." Judge Edwards wrote, "The only issue that we decide is whether, on the sparse record before is, Appellants have met their heavy burden to make a clear showing that they are entitled to the preliminary injunctive relief sought. For the reasons indicated, we conclude that Appellants have not."

The decision came in response to an appeal filed by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos and other Chicago-based immigrant-rights groups against Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The plaintiffs' initial attempt to block the IRS from sharing data with ICE was struck down in May 2025 by Judge Dabney Friedrich in the lower US District Court.

"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," Judge Friedrich wrote at the time. In April 2025, the IRS and DHS entered into a memorandum of understanding that outlined procedures where the IRS would fulfill requests under federal law for "addresses of persons subject to criminal investigation."

The goal of the MOU was for ICE to obtain the addresses of individuals who may be unlawfully residing in the country for enhanced deportation purposes. According to DHS, the information could also result in illegal immigrants being removed from voter rolls and government agencies determining who may have received public benefits.

Judge Edwards wrote that the plaintiffs would not likely succeed on the merits of their claims because "Both IRS and DHS acknowledged that, if ICE's requests were invalid or unsatisfactory in some ways, IRS would not disclose the information sought." The appellants argued that the data-sharing policy violated IRS statute 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(2), which prohibits the agency from the "disclosure of addresses alone."

However, Judge Edwards shot down the challenge, noting that the statute's provision "authorized IRS to disclose address information, to specific government officials, for use in nontax criminal investigations, and only in response to a valid request." He underscored how the MOU "is a nonbinding policy statement without legal effect," and therefore, "we find, as we do, that the 'best reading' of the statute does not support Appellants' position, then no agency may counterdemand the court's judgment."