Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The D.C. Circuit on September 8, 2026, affirmed interim relief blocking the IRS’s implemented process for responding to ICE requests for taxpayer addresses. The court did not rule that every IRS disclosure to ICE is forbidden. It found that the challenged procedure’s field checks did not ensure that requests and recipients met the conditions Congress set in Internal Revenue Code § 6103(i)(2).
What the appeals panel decided
In Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS, a D.C. Circuit panel affirmed interim relief against the IRS’s Data-Exchange Procedure for processing ICE address requests. The case concerned whether the procedure reliably verified statutory requirements—not whether an address can ever be disclosed under the law.
The panel focused on the difference between a request form containing information and that information establishing the required facts. It concluded that the procedure did not ensure compliance with § 6103(i)(2)’s substantive conditions. Read the September 8, 2026 opinion.
What § 6103(i)(2) requires
Tax return information is generally protected by Internal Revenue Code § 6103. Section 6103(i)(2) provides a conditional route for disclosure in specified non-tax criminal investigations or proceedings. As the September opinion summarized it, a written request must identify the taxpayer’s name and address, the taxable period, the statutory authority, and the specific reason the information is or may be relevant. Disclosed information is limited to officers or employees personally and directly engaged in the qualifying investigation or proceeding.
Recommended Free Tools
Those requirements matter to both the information being requested and the people permitted to receive it. A completed field alone does not establish that the address is the taxpayer’s or that a named recipient is personally and directly engaged in a qualifying matter.
Why the IRS procedure drew scrutiny
The court described a process that checked whether certain request fields were populated. It identified two central weaknesses:
- The address field: It could contain any five or nine digits, rather than a verified taxpayer address.
- The point-of-contact field: It could be nonempty without showing that the named ICE employee was personally and directly engaged in the relevant investigation or proceeding.
In the panel’s view, those checks did not establish that each request met the statute’s conditions. The concern was therefore not merely how many requests were submitted, but whether the processing method verified the facts that make disclosure lawful.
How the request and disclosure figures fit
The appellate opinion said that DHS and the IRS entered into a memorandum of understanding in 2025 to set procedures for ICE requests under § 6103(i)(2). In June 2025, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons requested last-known addresses for 1.28 million people. The IRS developed the Data-Exchange Procedure, and more than 47,000 records had been disclosed before the district court stayed its use. The panel affirmed that interim relief.
The district court’s November 21, 2025 memorandum separately described approximately 47,000 taxpayer addresses disclosed on August 7, 2025. It found a substantial likelihood that the disclosure violated the Administrative Procedure Act and § 6103(i)(2), and reported that the IRS relied on ICE’s representation that one employee was personally and directly engaged in more than one million investigations or proceedings. These are figures reported in the respective court opinions; they are not independently audited totals or a measure of how many addresses ICE ultimately used. Read the district court memorandum.
How this differs from the February 2026 MOU ruling
A different D.C. Circuit panel addressed the MOU in Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent on February 24, 2026. It affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction, concluding that § 6103(i)(2) authorizes address disclosure on valid requests and that the MOU was not reviewable final agency action. Read the February opinion.
| Issue | Centro de Trabajadores Unidos | Center for Taxpayer Rights |
|---|---|---|
| Action challenged | The MOU between DHS and the IRS | The IRS’s implemented Data-Exchange Procedure |
| Record before the court | Anticipated procedures | Evidence about actual processing and disclosures |
| Procedural result | Denial of a preliminary injunction affirmed | Interim relief against the procedure affirmed |
| Central question | Whether address disclosures may be permitted on valid requests | Whether this particular procedure reliably enforced statutory conditions |
The decisions address different actions and records, so they are not a blanket contradiction. The September ruling does not establish that all IRS–ICE address sharing is unlawful; the February ruling does not mean that any request or processing method automatically satisfies § 6103(i)(2).
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the ruling does—and does not—establish
The September decision is principally about taxpayer confidentiality and the procedures used to apply a statutory exception. It affirms interim relief against the challenged process because the panel found its checks insufficient to ensure that statutory requirements were met.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11The court’s opinion also quotes an IRS regulatory statement from 2024: “There is no provision in the United States Code that authorizes the disclosure or redisclosure of returns or return information for enforcement of immigration laws.” That quotation is the IRS’s prior regulatory statement, not the September panel’s categorical holding about disclosures under § 6103(i)(2), which the opinion treats as a conditional statutory route.
What remains unresolved
The opinions establish the September appellate ruling and describe the procedure under review. They do not establish what operational IRS–ICE procedure is currently in use after that decision, whether the agencies adopted a replacement, or whether later proceedings changed the interim relief. The ruling should therefore be read as a decision about the challenged procedure and its record, not as a definitive description of current agency practice.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
