Trump Admin. Scores Another Court Win As Federal | Political News

The Trump administration scored one other legal win Monday as D.C. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich denied the plaintiffs’ movement for a preliminary injunction in a case difficult the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sharing of knowledge with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration enforcement functions. 

The order by U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich got here amid a lawsuit by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, an immigrant-rights support group, against Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. 

“At its core, this case presents a narrow legal issue: Does the Memorandum of Understanding between the IRS and DHS violate the Internal Revenue Code? It does not,” Friedrich wrote in his order. 

(Note: Friedrich, a Trump appointee, is a lady, so that could be her order.)

The order itself is comparatively temporary (16 pages) and direct. In it, Friedrich notes that there’s a statutory provision in the tax code that particularly gives for the sharing of data contemplated right here:

Under the tax code, those information are stored confidential and might not be shared outdoors the IRS, unless a explicit statutory exception applies. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a). As related right here, one such exception, § 6103(i)(2), permits the pinnacle of any federal company to request tax return data to support in investigating or making ready for a judicial or administrative continuing to implement designated prison statutes. Id. § 6103(i)(2).

On April 7, 2025, the IRS and DHS entered into a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth the method for exchanging data pursuant to the statute. In essence, the memorandum tracks the language of the statute and permits for the data to be exchanged for “individuals subject to prison investigation.” The plaintiffs, 4 nonprofit organizations representing the pursuits of immigrants, assert that this is by some means in violation of the law. Judge Friedrich disagreed and, as such, concluded that they weren’t doubtless to win the case on the deserves, so a preliminary injunction was not warranted right here. 

RELATED: That Didn’t Take Long: D.C. Circuit Places Stay on Key Ruling That Favored Trump Administration

Federal Judge Orders Trump Admin to Begin Processing 12,000 Refugees in Next 7 Days

While it’s unclear how many unlawful aliens this might pertain to — the plaintiffs pointed to newspaper articles asserting that DHS had requested information for at least 700,000 unlawful immigrants — the order gives an instance of situations in which DHS would possibly request taxpayer data from the IRS, including deal with data, in the context of a prison investigation:

[I]f DHS is investigating an immigrant for remaining 90 days previous a ultimate elimination order, a latest deal with may affirm that the immigrant did in reality overstay the order. See Rough Hr’g Tr. at 59; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1). An deal with may also affirm that an particular person re-entered the U.S. Id. at 54, 60. And if a ultimate elimination order was issued in absentia, DHS would possibly ship a discover letter to guarantee that the immigrants was conscious of the order. 

Also on Monday, Friedrich denied the movement of American Oversight (a group concerned in a number of fits against the Trump administration) to intervene in the case. In doing so, she famous that she was unsealing most of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the IRS and DHS, along with the events’ briefs, thus obviating American Oversight’s rivalry that intervention was warranted to access the paperwork at problem:

The MOU is a central focus of this litigation, and the data contained in the redacted MOU has been broadly mentioned, including on the file in open court at the April 16, 2025 preliminary injunction movement listening to. Although the federal government objects to its full disclosure, it has not asserted a compelling curiosity or high risk of prejudice with disclosure of the MOU and briefs. The public need for access is high given that the MOU’s content material is crucial to the claims raised by the plaintiffs and the Court’s reasoning in its forthcoming opinion on the 28 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The Court won’t order, however, that the IRS “points of contact” on web page 13 of the MOU be unsealed. With respect to those decrease stage authorities workers, the Court concludes that their personal privateness pursuits outweigh any public need to access their names and contact data.

In sum, this is a win for the administration, and one the plaintiffs might decide not to appeal, though we’ll proceed to monitor it in case they do. 

Editor’s Note: Partisan federal judges are hijacking President Trump’s agenda and insulting the desire of the people

Help us expose out-of-control judges lifeless set on halting President Trump’s mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.