The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was scheduled to hear arguments Friday in a case concerning the extent of IRS’ authority to share taxpayer address data with immigration authorities. Leading up to the hearing, the plaintiff civil rights and advocacy organizations spoke to reporters to emphasize what is at stake for immigrant taxpayers. (Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent, No. 25-5181)
Background
The plaintiffs, Centro de Trabajadores Unidos (CTU) and Immigrant Solidarity DuPage (ISD), are Illinois-based immigration and civil rights advocacy organizations. The litigation focuses on whether the IRS’ agreement to provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with taxpayer addresses, under a memorandum of understanding (MOU), is consistent with IRC § 6103.
The plaintiffs assert that the IRS’ policy affects individuals who file taxes using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), including many undocumented immigrants. They contend that the government’s actions may impact voluntary tax compliance and the relationship between the IRS and immigrant communities.
Other organizations joining as petitioners include Public Citizen, UnidosUS, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, and the Raise the Floor Alliance.
Section 6103
Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code generally provides that tax returns and return information are confidential and may not be disclosed except as specifically authorized by law. The statute was enacted to address concerns about the use of tax data for purposes beyond tax administration. While there are exceptions for certain law enforcement needs, the default rule is confidentiality.
The IRS’ ITIN program, established in 1996, allows individuals who are not eligible for Social Security numbers to comply with federal tax laws. ITIN filers contribute to federal, state, and local revenues.
Plaintiffs argue that the IRS’ recent agreement with ICE, which allows for the sharing of taxpayer address information as part of the Trump administration’s ramped up immigration enforcement efforts, runs afoul of Section 6103. In a similar case, the government asserted the MOU does not reflect an IRS “policy.”
The government maintains that an exception under IRC § 6103(i)(2) authorizes the IRS to provide taxpayer address information to federal agencies for use in criminal investigations, provided statutory requirements are met. The MOU requires that all ICE requests for return information conform to these requirements, and the IRS reviews each request for completeness and validity.
District Court Ruling and Appeal
The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the IRS from sharing taxpayer information with DHS and ICE during the litigation. On May 12, 2025, the lower district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that the IRS could lawfully share taxpayer address information with ICE for criminal investigations, but not for civil enforcement actions. (135 AFTR 2d 2025-1568; 2025 WL 1380420)
Judge Dabney L. Friedrich — a Trump appointee — concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood that IRS disclosures would be used for civil enforcement, and therefore lacked standing on that claim.
On appeal to the circuit court, the plaintiffs argue that the district court misinterpreted Section 6103 and did not fully consider the potential harm to immigrant taxpayers and the public interest in tax confidentiality. Their brief contends that Section 6103(i)(2) does not authorize the IRS to disclose addresses when no other information is requested, and that the IRS’ policy change was arbitrary and capricious.
The government maintains that the IRS is required by law to share address information for criminal investigations and that the plaintiffs lack standing. Plaintiffs’ reply brief emphasizes the risk of harm and the inadequacy of alternative remedies.
Orgs Speak Out
“Section 6103 (i)(2) was intended for law enforcement access to a few pieces of tax information to assist an ongoing criminal investigation,” Senior Director of Policy and Advocacy at UnidosUS Laura MacCleery told Checkpoint. She stated that the statute presumes tax information is confidential and that this principle has been respected by prior administrations.
MacCleery also commented on the potential effect of the IRS-ICE agreement, stating, “Our tax system relies on voluntary compliance — people have to trust the government with their most personal information,” and that the agreement “damages that trust.”
As for how the current government shutdown comes into play as the Trump administration mulls further workforce reductions, MacCleery said that the “use of a temporary shutdown to threaten permanent employers with further cuts is yet another example of overreach by federal officials — being furloughed is not the same as being fired, and they know better.”
At a press conference hosted by Public Citizen before the hearing, advocates discussed the implications for immigrant communities and the public. Raise the Floor Alliance Legal Director Kevin Herrera stated that the administration’s actions raise concerns about the privacy of tax records. “If ICE can pierce that firewall, no worker, no family and no person is safe from those threats,” he said.
Herrera also noted the economic contributions of immigrants, stating that “immigrant workers contribute nearly $100 billion to our tax base annually.” He said the laws that make records private “serve a purpose.”
Doug Smith, vice president of policy and legal strategy at Inclusive Action for the City, said ITINS are “used by millions of immigrants to start the small businesses that create jobs, anchor our main streets, strengthen our communities, and grow our economy.”
He added that “the only reason the government has this information is because immigrants relied on the government’s promises of data privacy and played by the rules.”
Somos Un Pueblo Unido Executive Director Marcela Diaz said undocumented workers “trust that this data will be protected with the same confidentiality as that of every other taxpayer.” She stated that the policy is “spreading fear across our communities.”
Ana Guajardo, executive director of Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, described fear and harm experienced in immigrant communities, alleging that “ICE is trying to turn the IRS into a tool for mass intimidation.”
For more on authorized disclosures under Section 6103, see Checkpoint’s Federal Tax Coordinator 2d ¶ S-6371.
Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers.
