Status as of September 8, 2026. The D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld the preliminary injunction barring the transfer of return information to the Department of Homeland Security under a procedure the court found incompatible with the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 6103. The relief is preliminary: the case has not been decided on the merits. Before the injunction issued, 47,289 records had already gone to ICE under that procedure. The ruling was issued in Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS, No. 26-5006.
On September 8, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court: the procedure under which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disclosed taxpayers' last known addresses to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is likely contrary to law. What follows is what the court rejected, how the disclosure mechanism worked, how many records were released, how this ruling differs from the February one, and what it means for people who file taxes with an ITIN.
What the court decided on September 8, 2026
A three-judge panel — Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins — unanimously affirmed the district court's November 2025 order. That order stayed the procedure under 5 U.S.C. § 705, preliminarily enjoined further disclosures of return information to the Department of Homeland Security except in strict compliance with the statute, and required the IRS to notify the court before responding to any new request. Judge Pillard wrote the 32-page opinion; the case was argued on May 12, 2026.
The court held that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, because the disclosure mechanism — called the Data-Exchange Procedure in the opinion — contravenes the requirements of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. Separately, the court held that the Procedure is final agency action and therefore reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
What section 6103 is and where the restriction comes from
Section 6103 of Title 26 was enacted after Watergate, when executive-branch abuses of taxpayer information against political opponents came to light. The provision makes returns and return information confidential: no federal employee may disclose them — including within the executive branch — unless a provision of Title 26 expressly authorizes the disclosure.
The exception at issue is section 6103(i)(2). It permits the IRS to disclose return information to other federal agencies for use in specified federal non-tax criminal investigations and proceedings, including grand jury proceedings. To obtain the information, the head of the requesting agency must submit a written request setting out four required elements: the name and address of the taxpayer, the taxable period, the statutory authority for the proceeding or investigation, and the specific reason why the requested information is or may be relevant to it. Disclosure is permitted only to officers and employees personally and directly engaged in that investigation or proceeding.
Willful disclosure in violation of section 6103 carries civil liability under section 7431 and felony criminal liability under section 7213. In November 2024, the IRS itself stated in the Federal Register that no provision of the U.S. Code authorizes disclosure of returns or return information for the enforcement of immigration laws.
How the address sharing with ICE worked
In the spring of 2025, reports emerged that the Department of Homeland Security had asked the IRS for the addresses of undocumented taxpayers. DHS/ICE and the IRS entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishing procedures for submitting section 6103(i)(2) requests concerning individuals under criminal investigation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1) — the statute covering willful failure to depart the United States within the statutory 90-day removal period following a final order of removal.
On June 27, 2025, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons sent the IRS a written request for the last known address of 1.28 million people. On July 1, 2025, the IRS gave its employees the green light to begin processing. The Data-Exchange Procedure was built for that volume: a preprocessing check of the request fields, followed by either a lookup by tax identification number (SSN or ITIN) or name-and-address matching, and then delivery of the results to ICE.
Before April 2025 the practice was the opposite. The Internal Revenue Manual required Disclosure Managers to process section 6103(i)(2) requests individually: contact the official assigned to the particular criminal case, inquire about the relevant court date, discuss less intrusive disclosure alternatives, and review every document released. The IRS had also interpreted section 6103(i)(2) as prohibiting disclosure of a taxpayer's address when nothing else was requested.
What in the procedure violated the law
The court identified three gaps between the text of the statute and how the Procedure operated in practice.
Requirement of section 6103(i)(2) | What the Data-Exchange Procedure did |
|---|---|
The request must contain the name and address of the taxpayer | It checked only that the address field held five or nine digits, not necessarily a real zip code. Records were released on requests listing an address as "Unknown Address," "Failed to Provide" or "NA NA" |
Information goes only to officers personally and directly engaged in the qualifying investigation of that taxpayer | It checked only that the point-of-contact field was not empty. Across requests covering 1.28 million people, ICE listed the same individual as the point of contact |
The request must give a specific reason why the information is or may be relevant to the investigation | The IRS accepted a single cover letter of general wording for a batch of 1.28 million requests; the court described that reasoning as more circular than specific |
The district court had found it facially implausible that a single individual could be personally and directly engaged in roughly 47,000 criminal matters, let alone 1.28 million. Given that ICE had sought information on more than 7 million people in early June 2025 and on more than a million later that month, the district court found that the record raised an inference that ICE's stated reliance on criminal investigations under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1) was pretext. At oral argument, counsel for the IRS acknowledged that some of the transfers did not comply with the statute.
How much data was already shared and what happened to it
Under the Data-Exchange Procedure the IRS released 47,289 records to ICE. More than 90% of them came through tax identification number matching — that is, through requests where the accuracy of the address supplied by ICE was never verified. The September ruling does not itself undo the disclosures that already occurred: the statute provides no mechanism to recall information once released.
Steps to restrict access were taken separately. In November 2025 the defendants notified the court that they had sent letters to ICE and DHS directing that the transferred data be restricted and eventually returned or destroyed. In February 2026, in a parallel case, a court preliminarily enjoined ICE and DHS from inspecting, using, copying, distributing or otherwise acting upon the information obtained under the agreement.
How this ruling differs from the February one
The distinction is fundamental and easy to miss. In February 2026 the same court of appeals, in Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent, assessed the IRS–ICE Memorandum of Understanding itself and concluded that the MOU merely tracked the language and bounds of section 6103(i)(2).
The September ruling concerns not the MOU but how the IRS implemented it. The court stated directly that while the MOU stayed within the statute, the Data-Exchange Procedure veered off that course. In other words, what was held likely unlawful is not the interagency agreement as such, but the automated mechanism that released data without the checks required by the statute and by the MOU itself.
The court also rejected the administration's argument that the injunction impedes law enforcement: that, the court said, is a gripe with Congress, not the court, and the government has no legitimate interest in conducting criminal investigations in violation of the statute. The argument that the duty to notify the court of new requests would jeopardize investigations was called weak sauce, since the district court allowed such notices to be filed under seal.
What the ruling means for ITIN taxpayers
The practical effect is narrow and worth understanding without inflated expectations.
The bar on releasing addresses from the IRS to ICE through the rejected Procedure remains in force — but it is preliminary relief, entered at the injunction stage.
47,289 records were already transferred to ICE. The ruling does not undo those disclosures; restrictions on the use of that data come from a separate preliminary injunction in another case.
The relief targets one specific channel — the Data-Exchange Procedure between the IRS and ICE. Other interagency data channels are not covered by it.
The court emphasized that the IRS is now on notice twice over regarding the legal inadequacies of its summer 2025 disclosures, and that the government and its personnel face steep civil and criminal consequences for willful violations of section 6103.
The ruling does not change any filing obligation: it addresses whom the IRS may share information with and on what conditions, not who must report to the tax agency.
The court separately recorded a documented chilling effect. According to the plaintiffs, taxpayers without Social Security numbers stopped coming to a pro bono tax clinic out of fear that information about their status or location would be shared with DHS and ICE. That drop in engagement was one of the grounds for finding that the organization was likely to establish standing.
What happens next
The case returns to the district court for the District of Columbia, where it has not been decided on the merits: the appeal concerned only preliminary relief. Procedural options remain open to the government, including a petition for rehearing en banc and a petition to the Supreme Court. As of September 8, 2026, there is no information that either step has been taken.
DHS said it disagrees with the ruling and will continue using every lawful tool available to locate and remove aliens who are in the country unlawfully and subject to final orders of removal. The status of the injunction may change at any time and should be verified against the current case record.
Frequently asked questions
Can the IRS currently disclose taxpayer addresses to ICE?
A preliminary injunction is in force: return information may be disclosed to the Department of Homeland Security only in strict compliance with the requirements of section 6103(i)(2), and the IRS must notify the court in advance of any new request. The automated procedure used in the summer of 2025 is stayed.
What happened to the 47,289 records already sent to ICE?
They were transferred to ICE, and the September ruling does not undo that disclosure. In November 2025 the defendants notified the court that they had sent letters to ICE and DHS directing that the data be restricted and eventually returned or destroyed. In February 2026, in a parallel case, a court preliminarily enjoined ICE and DHS from using the information obtained.
Was the IRS–ICE Memorandum of Understanding itself held unlawful?
No. In February 2026 the court of appeals held in Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent that the MOU merely tracked the language and bounds of section 6103(i)(2). The September ruling addresses the Data-Exchange Procedure — the mechanism through which the IRS implemented the MOU and which departed from its terms.
What is section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code?
It is a post-Watergate provision. It makes returns and return information confidential and bars federal employees from disclosing them, including within the executive branch, unless a provision of Title 26 of the U.S. Code expressly authorizes disclosure. Section 6103(i)(2) is the exception for use in specified federal non-tax criminal investigations and proceedings.
Does the ruling mean ITIN data is protected from immigration authorities?
The ruling closes one specific channel and does so at a preliminary stage. It does not reach other federal interagency data-sharing mechanisms and does not undo transfers that already occurred. How the ruling applies to an individual situation is a question for a licensed attorney.
Who sued the IRS?
The plaintiffs were the Center for Taxpayer Rights, Main Street Alliance and two labor unions — the Communications Workers of America and the National Federation of Federal Employees. They were represented by the advocacy group Democracy Forward. An amicus brief was filed in support by 115 members of Congress.
Official sources
Resource | What it is for |
|---|---|
Full text of the court's opinion of September 8, 2026 — primary source | |
Opinions by date and docket number, including the February MOU decision | |
Text of the confidentiality rule for tax information and its exceptions |
This material is informational and is not legal advice. Information is current as of September 8, 2026; the status of the preliminary injunction may change. Before making decisions that affect immigration or tax status, verify against official sources and consult a licensed attorney.