(UNITED STATES) — A federal judge found that the IRS breached strict confidentiality protections when sharing taxpayer addresses with ICE, signaling potential constitutional and statutory violations that could reshape data-sharing practices in immigration enforcement.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled on February 26, 2026, that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) violated Internal Revenue Code § 6103 by disclosing confidential taxpayer addresses to ICE approximately 42,695 times. The ruling linked the disclosures to an April 7, 2025 IRS-ICE Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Judge Kollar-Kotelly anchored the finding in a declaration filed February 11, 2026 by Dottie Romo, IRS Chief Risk and Control Officer. Romo’s declaration described how address disclosures occurred after ICE requests tied to immigration enforcement priorities.
Court filings described the address-sharing as part of a cross-agency arrangement for non-tax criminal investigations targeting people subject to final removal orders. The judge said the record showed IRS disclosures occurred even when ICE requests did not meet statutory requirements.
April 7, 2025 marked the signing of the IRS-ICE MOU that later drew legal scrutiny. In June 2025, ICE sought addresses for 1.28 million individuals, a request that became central to the litigation.
August 7, 2025 became a key date in the dispute after the IRS disclosed tens of thousands of addresses. In November 2025, a District of Columbia court issued a preliminary injunction halting further sharing and blocking ICE use of existing IRS data.
February 2026 brought rapid litigation activity as the address disclosures came into clearer focus. Plaintiffs asked to pause the appeal for discovery, while the government pressed forward with its appellate arguments.
| Date | Event | Parties Involved | Impact on Proceedings |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 7, 2025 | IRS-ICE Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed | Internal Revenue Service (IRS), ICE | Set framework for data sharing challenged in court |
| June 2025 | ICE requests addresses for 1.28 million individuals | ICE, IRS | Triggered the disputed address requests |
| August 7, 2025 | IRS discloses 47,289 addresses | IRS, ICE | Became a focal disclosure event cited in filings |
| November 2025 | District court issues preliminary injunction halting sharing and blocking ICE use | District of Columbia court, IRS, ICE | Stopped further transfers; preserved status quo |
| February 11, 2026 | Romo declaration admits flawed disclosures | Dottie Romo, IRS | Added factual admissions supporting statutory violation claims |
| February 13, 2026 | Plaintiffs file motion to stay appeal for new discovery | Center for Taxpayer Rights, Democracy Forward, others | Sought additional fact development during appeal |
| February 17, 2026 | Government files opening brief in appeal | Federal government | Advanced standing and reviewability arguments |
| February 26, 2026 | Judge Kollar-Kotelly issues ruling | Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly | Found violations of Internal Revenue Code § 6103 |
At the core of the case is Internal Revenue Code § 6103, which governs confidentiality of taxpayer data held by the IRS. The statute is designed to keep tax return information, including certain taxpayer data, from being disclosed except under narrow legal exceptions.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly said the IRS “failed to ensure that ICE’s request for confidential taxpayer address information met the statutory requirements.” She found disclosures occurred when requests were “patently deficient,” a phrase she used to describe legally inadequate requests that should not have been fulfilled.
Romo’s February 11, 2026 declaration was “a significant development in this case,” the judge wrote. The ruling treated the declaration as evidence that compliance checks were not performed adequately before address data was shared.
The disclosures counted by the court totaled approximately 42,695 times. That figure sits at the center of the court’s finding that the IRS violated Internal Revenue Code § 6103.
Romo’s declaration also described the scale of ICE’s June 2025 request. It said the IRS shared addresses for 47,000 of the 1.28 million individuals requested by ICE.
The filings tied one high-volume disclosure event to August 7, 2025, when the IRS disclosed 47,289 addresses. Romo’s declaration said ICE provided incomplete or insufficient data in nearly 5% of cases, a defect the judge said the IRS should have caught.
| Total Disclosures (approx.) | Data Point | Date/Context |
|---|---|---|
| 42,695 | Times the IRS disclosed confidential taxpayer addresses in violation of Internal Revenue Code § 6103 | Finding issued February 26, 2026 |
| 1.28 million | Individuals for whom ICE requested addresses | June 2025 ICE request |
| 47,000 | Individuals for whom IRS shared addresses out of the 1.28 million requested | Described in Romo declaration filed February 11, 2026 |
| 47,289 | Addresses disclosed in a major disclosure event | August 7, 2025 disclosures |
The lawsuit was brought by a set of organizational plaintiffs that argued tax confidentiality rules were being breached in service of immigration enforcement. Plaintiffs include Center for Taxpayer Rights (represented by Democracy Forward), Main Street Alliance, Communications Workers of America, and National Federation of Federal Employees.
Defendants include the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and ICE/DHS. The case name in court filings is Center for Taxpayer Rights et al. v. Internal Revenue Service et al.
The dispute has unfolded alongside fast-moving injunction and appellate litigation. In November 2025, the District of Columbia court issued a preliminary injunction halting further sharing and blocking ICE from using IRS data it had already obtained.
Government lawyers appealed to the DC Circuit and continued to dispute the plaintiffs’ ability to sue. In its opening brief filed February 17, 2026, the government argued the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the challenged policy was not a reviewable “final agency action.”
Plaintiffs pressed for additional fact development after the Romo declaration. On February 13, 2026, they filed a motion to stay the appeal for new discovery tied to the disclosures and the compliance steps around ICE requests.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s February 26, 2026 ruling strengthened the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits of Internal Revenue Code § 6103. The decision did not dissolve the existing injunction, and the appeal remains active.
⚠️ Note that the ruling centers on statutory confidentiality protections; ongoing injunctions and appellate review mean the data-sharing framework remains contested.
Public reactions quickly framed the decision as a test of whether tax privacy protections can withstand immigration enforcement demands. Nina Olson of Center for Taxpayer Rights said the ruling confirmed “that the IRS has an unlawful policy that violates the Internal Revenue Code’s protections,” highlighting the confidentiality purpose of § 6103.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, called for an expanded investigation into the disclosures. Perryman warned of “breaches in the privacy of taxpayer data” under Trump-Vance administration policies, pointing to broader concerns about cross-agency access to taxpayer information.
Congressional committees are demanding probes into the IRS admission described in the Romo declaration. Those requests raise the prospect of parallel oversight inquiries running alongside the DC Circuit appeal.
For immigrant communities and employers who rely on predictable confidentiality rules, the case has put IRS information-sharing under a bright light. Internal Revenue Code § 6103 typically functions as a strict barrier, and the ruling suggested the IRS did not apply that barrier as the statute requires.
The decision may also influence how agencies document and vet requests for taxpayer data in enforcement settings. Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s focus on “patently deficient” requests points to the legal risk of acting on incomplete identifiers or insufficient statutory showings.
Ongoing injunctions remain in place while the appeal proceeds. A final resolution will likely come through the DC Circuit process, or further district court proceedings if the record expands through discovery.
✅ What readers should monitor next: potential congressional probes, further discovery actions, and any final appellate decision affecting IRS-ICE data-sharing policies.
Individuals and organizations affected by IRS disclosures may face fact-specific questions about privacy, remedies, and agency use limits. Court deadlines and the DC Circuit’s pace will shape how quickly the legal rules around IRS-ICE data sharing are clarified.
This article covers a legal ruling and tax confidentiality issues that may affect individuals and organizations. Readers should consult qualified counsel for legal or tax advice.
Information reflects court filings and statements as of the specified dates; developments may change on appeal.
