American Oversight Secures Major Transparency Victory in IRS-ICE Data-Sharing Case That Could Jeopardize Sensitive Taxpayer Info of Millions

Late Monday, in a significant win for government transparency, nonprofit watchdog American Oversight secured a court order requiring the near-complete unsealing of a controversial memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that could jeopardize the sensitive taxpayer information of millions.

The decision by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich orders the unsealing of the majority of the MOU and related previously sealed legal filings.

“This is a major win for transparency,” said Chioma Chukwu, Executive Director of American Oversight. “The IRS and ICE should never have been allowed to negotiate in secret an agreement with such sweeping privacy implications. The public deserves to know how the administration is sharing and potentially jeopardizing their sensitive tax information to advance its anti-democratic agenda.”

Public Citizen filed the underlying case on behalf of Centro de Trabajadores Unidos and Immigrant Solidarity DuPage to prevent the IRS from engaging in the unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information for immigration enforcement purposes. The ruling comes as the court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, leaving the challenged data-sharing policy in place for now. That outcome underscores the importance of the agreement’s public scrutiny: Enforcement of this controversial policy could impact countless individuals and communities across the country, and its details must be brought into the light of day.

Pursuant to the court’s order, the MOU must be “almost entirely unsealed” and the related briefs must be “unsealed in full” and filed with the court by the end of the day.

Additional Background

American Oversight’s motion noted that the government filed a redacted version of the MOU to support its response to the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which was filed on April 7, 2025. During a preliminary injunction hearing on April 16, the government apparently provided an unredacted MOU to the court and the plaintiffs under a protective order arranged in open court. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a supplemental memorandum on April 23, with both redacted and sealed versions.

On April 28, the government filed its response to that supplemental memorandum entirely under seal, with the contested MOU likely included as an attachment. The court granted the government’s motion to seal without providing any analysis of whether such comprehensive sealing was appropriate under legal standards that favor public access to court proceedings.