- A U.S. appellate court denied a preliminary injunction against IRS-ICE data sharing on February 24, 2026.
- Judges ruled that verifying names and addresses likely falls outside statutory taxpayer privacy protections under Section 6103.
- The decision allows ICE to continue cross-referencing records for immigration enforcement while the legal battle proceeds.
(UNITED STATES) — A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on February 24, 2026, denied a preliminary injunction request from immigrant rights group Centro de Trabajadores Unidos and other nonprofits, allowing the IRS to continue sharing certain immigrants’ taxpayer data with ICE.
Judge Harry T. Edwards led the panel, which concluded the nonprofits “are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim” in a dispute over whether the information falls under Internal Revenue Code § 6103.
The ruling leaves in place the government’s ability, for now, to use IRS systems to verify names and addresses against tax records when ICE submits leads, a practice the nonprofits argue violates taxpayer privacy protections.
At the center of the appeal is the panel’s view that the shared information—verification of names and addresses against tax records—is not covered by the IRS privacy statute under Internal Revenue Code § 6103.
The data-sharing traces to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in April 2025 by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Under that framework, ICE can submit names and addresses of individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally for IRS cross-verification, a process the government describes as identity and address verification and opponents frame as an unlawful sharing of protected taxpayer information.
Court filings have also put numbers on how the pipeline operated during a large 2025 request, while highlighting disputes over the timing and quality of the data ICE supplied.
In June 2025 (or August per some filings), ICE requested data on 1.28 million individuals.
The IRS verified 47,000—precisely 47,289 in one filing—and shared address information for less than 5% of those, totaling thousands of addresses.
An IRS official raised concerns about data completeness in the matching process. IRS Chief Risk and Control Officer Dottie Romo declared on February 11, 2026, that nearly 5% involved “potentially incomplete or insufficient” ICE data, including fields like “Failed to Provide” or “Unknown Address,” during the “TIN Matching” process.
Romo’s declaration connected those gaps to the risk that mismatches or incomplete entries could trigger improper disclosures or flawed verification, an issue that sits alongside the broader legal fight over what § 6103 does and does not protect.
The D.C. Circuit decision did not end the litigation over the IRS-ICE arrangement, but it shaped what can happen while the lawsuits move through the courts.
A separate dispute had already produced a trial-court order. A U.S. District Court judge in November 2025 issued a preliminary injunction in Center for Taxpayer Rights v. Internal Revenue Service that halted broader sharing, an order now under appeal.
The government filed its opening brief on February 17, 2026, arguing lack of standing and no violation of § 6103.
While preliminary injunction fights often turn on the likelihood of success and other factors, the immediate consequence is practical: the boundaries of what agencies can do now can depend on whether an injunction remains in place while judges weigh the merits.
The D.C. Circuit panel’s language focused on the nonprofits’ likelihood of success. It treated name-and-address verification against tax records as outside the statute the plaintiffs invoked, at least for purposes of blocking the practice at this stage.
Even with the appellate ruling, questions about how the MOU operates in practice have remained prominent because the arrangement links tax administration systems to immigration enforcement workflows.
ICE’s role begins with submissions of identifying information—names and addresses—about people it suspects of being unlawfully present. The IRS then checks those details against tax records, a step the government has cast as verification rather than the release of protected return information.
The same mechanics have fueled the plaintiffs’ argument that what looks like a limited verification process can still implicate privacy protections, because the existence of a match and the confirmation of an address can expose information derived from tax filings.
The figures in filings have also shaped the public debate over scale. A request covering 1.28 million individuals far exceeded the number ultimately verified, and the smaller slice that produced address disclosures—less than 5% of those verified—became a focal point for disputes over how widely information moved from the IRS to ICE.
Romo’s reference to nearly 5% of ICE submissions having “potentially incomplete or insufficient” data added a second line of criticism: whether the inputs themselves were reliable enough for the IRS to run matching, and whether incomplete fields could increase the risk of error.
Those concerns have mattered to opponents of the arrangement because mistaken identity or faulty address confirmation can carry consequences in immigration enforcement, including erroneous actions and the broader privacy implications that follow from sharing taxpayer-related data across agencies.
The MOU’s rollout also triggered internal strain at the IRS. The acting IRS commissioner resigned last year in protest, tying the leadership departure to concerns over the rollout of the data-sharing arrangement.
Advocacy groups have pointed to that resignation and the emerging details in court filings to argue the arrangement erodes longstanding protections designed to encourage tax compliance, including among people with precarious immigration status.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said the Trump-Vance administration’s policies led to “breaches in the privacy of taxpayer data.”
The administration cast the February 24 decision in political terms. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the ruling a “crucial victory” on social media and wrote, “Deporting illegal aliens makes the American people safer,” aligning it with the Trump administration’s border security agenda involving deportations and workplace raids.
Congressional committees have continued to scrutinize the arrangement, with attention on the potential for errors and what safeguards exist when agencies move information through the matching process.
Centro de Trabajadores Unidos has not commented publicly on the decision.
The case continues in court, with the appellate decision leaving the IRS-ICE data-sharing in place for now even as the legal fight over § 6103, standing, and the scope of permissible verification moves forward.
