In a significant legal victory for the Trump administration, D.C. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich rejected a preliminary injunction request in a lawsuit challenging the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) data sharing with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration enforcement purposes.
The ruling was handed down on Monday, marking another triumph for the administration's stringent immigration policies.
As reported by RedState, the lawsuit was initiated by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, an immigrant-rights aid group, against Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The crux of the case revolved around a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the IRS and DHS. The plaintiffs argued that this MOU, which allows for the exchange of information for "persons subject to criminal investigation," violated the Internal Revenue Code. However, Judge Friedrich, a Trump appointee, disagreed.
In her order, Judge Friedrich stated, "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." She further noted that the tax code includes a statutory provision specifically permitting the type of information sharing outlined in the MOU.
The plaintiffs, comprising four nonprofit organizations representing immigrant interests, contended that the MOU was in breach of the law. However, Judge Friedrich concluded that they were unlikely to win the case on its merits, thereby rendering a preliminary injunction unwarranted.
The extent of the ruling's impact on illegal immigrants remains uncertain. The plaintiffs cited newspaper articles claiming that DHS had requested records for at least 700,000 illegal immigrants. The order does illustrate scenarios where DHS might request taxpayer information from the IRS, such as address information, in the context of a criminal investigation.
Judge Friedrich's order also detailed, "[I]f DHS is investigating an immigrant for remaining 90 days past a final removal order, a recent address could confirm that the immigrant did in fact overstay the order. An address could also confirm that an individual re-entered the U.S. And if a final removal order was issued in absentia, DHS might send a notice letter to ensure that the immigrants was aware of the order."
In a related development, Judge Friedrich also denied a motion by American Oversight, a group involved in several lawsuits against the Trump administration, to intervene in the case. She unsealed most of the MOU between the IRS and DHS, along with the parties' briefs, thereby negating American Oversight's claim that intervention was necessary to access the documents in question.
The judge stated, "The MOU is a central focus of this litigation, and the information contained in the redacted MOU has been widely discussed, including on the record in open court at the April 16, 2025 preliminary injunction motion hearing." She added that the public need for access was high, given that the MOU's content was crucial to the plaintiffs' claims and the court's reasoning in its forthcoming opinion on the motion for a preliminary injunction.
This ruling represents a significant victory for the Trump administration, reinforcing its stance on immigration enforcement. While the plaintiffs may choose not to appeal, the case will continue to be closely monitored for any further developments.
Login