It’s tax season again, which means a modicum of stress, frustration, and anger for many Americans. The financial information taxpayers share with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is confidential and neither public record nor freely shared with other government agencies. At least, it’s not supposed to be.
On February 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the IRS’s taxpayer data-sharing memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The court found that a lawsuit filed by four community organizations had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, including claims that the IRS’s change in policy violated federal tax confidentiality rules and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The challenged policy stems from an IRS data-sharing agreement that led to the transfer of tens of thousands of taxpayers’ addresses and other information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in August 2025.
Judge Talwani’s ruling is the second to go against DHS and ICE on the sharing of taxpayer information. In November 2025, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction barring the IRS from sharing certain taxpayer address information with ICE, finding that the IRS’s policy likely violated federal privacy laws, Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, and the APA. That order stayed an earlier IRS–ICE information-sharing agreement and required the IRS to notify the court before making further disclosures of taxpayer data.
The ruling in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts blocks the Trump administration from using taxpayer addresses and other return information obtained via the IRS–ICE MOU for immigration enforcement, including deportations. Judge Talwani barred DHS, ICE, and their agents from inspecting, viewing, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise acting upon any return information obtained through the MOU and ordered ICE to provide the ruling to the staffer whose government computer holds the IRS data. The federal government’s appeal of Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s November 2025 injunction is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
That’s Taxing in More Ways Than One
All U.S. citizens above a certain income threshold are required to file an annual federal tax return. The return information provided in tax filings contains confidential personal and financial information that’s protected by the IRS code's promise of taxpayer privacy. Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code begins with “Returns and return information shall be confidential,” and goes on to list the potential exceptions with exacting detail. For example, the Senate Joint Committee on Taxation can request a particular tax return, but it must either obtain the taxpayer’s consent or view it only in a closed executive session.
Gaining access to taxpayer records for non-tax criminal investigations is subject to several federal safeguards, including the requirement that law enforcement obtain an ex parte court order authorizing disclosure under 26 U.S.C. 6103(i). The IRS generally may share return information for non-tax criminal investigations only to the extent authorized by such a court order. By contrast, the DHS request at issue did not proceed through the usual ex parte order process for the migrants, noncitizens, and U.S. citizens whose information was swept into the resulting ICE enforcement operations in states like California and Minnesota.
Judge Talwani’s ruling stated that the IRS-ICE memorandum of understanding (MOU) caused irreparable harm by bypassing taxpayer confidentiality. The request violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and could have a chilling effect on the privacy of tax records. In addition to enjoining all agents of DHS and ICE from viewing the taxpayer data, it also demanded confirmation that the order was received by the IRS agent who originally shared the information.
Courts Battles Over Immigration Enforcement Continue
President Donald Trump promised a more aggressive immigration policy for his second term, and it’s a rare day when something to do with ICE isn’t at the top of the news feed. It’s perhaps the most divisive and contested issue in the nation, with battles waged daily on the streets and in the courts.
The plaintiffs in the case before Judge Talwani are the Community Economic Development Center of Southeastern Massachusetts, the National Parents Union, the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium, and the UndocuBlack Network, all of which are community-based organizations that support immigrants’ rights and economic opportunity. Judge Talwani found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the IRS’s policy violated the APA and federal tax confidentiality protections and therefore issued the preliminary injunction, leaving it in place while the litigation proceeds on appeal and on the merits. For now, the injunction offers taxpayers and mixed-status families some reassurance that the information on their returns is not easily accessible for immigration enforcement purposes.
Related Resources
- The IRS and Your Rights (FindLaw’s Federal Tax Laws) (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law)
- Top 3 Rights To Know if Stopped by ICE (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- Top Tax Myths Debunked (FindLaw’s Individual Tax Law)
