A federal judge refused to block the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from sharing information about migrants living in the country illegally with immigration authorities.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled that last month’s agreement between the IRS and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not violate federal tax law.
“To summarize, the IRS must disclose limited taxpayer identity information (e.g., the taxpayer’s name and address) to assist another agency in criminal investigations and proceedings, if the agency has satisfied the statutory prerequisites in its written request,” Friedrich wrote in her 16-page ruling.
The agreement enables the IRS to share the current addresses of migrants who have been ordered removed from the country within the past 90 days, part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to step up deportations using all available legal tools.
Four immigration organizations sued over the agreement, claiming it wasn’t in accordance with law and was arbitrary and capricious.
The federal tax code generally keeps taxpayers’ records confidential. But it includes some exceptions, including one that enables a federal agency head to request certain information to assist in criminal enforcement proceedings.
Friedrich ruled that the immigration groups’ challenge “does not comport with the text of the statute” and would add additional restrictions.
“The provision plainly exempts taxpayer address information from the general prohibition on sharing taxpayer return information and requires that information to be disclosed upon a valid written request,” wrote Friedrich, a Trump appointee.
“As long as the agency has a name and an address for a taxpayer, it can request address and name information from the IRS to assist the requesting agency in a criminal investigation or proceeding, and the IRS must comply,” she continued.
The ruling marks the second time that the judge has rejected the groups’ request to block the data-sharing.
Before the memorandum was signed between the IRS and DHS, Friedrich in March declined to intervene by finding the plaintiffs were relying on media reports and hadn’t shown enough evidence that the data sharing was imminent.
In the latest ruling, Friedrich ruled that the subsequent memo now provides the groups with legal standing to assert some of their claims. But that the government’s actions were legal, the judge ruled.
“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,” the judge wrote.
