Judge dismisses Trump administration's appeal, calls argument weak sauce
A federal judge rejected the Trump administration's challenge to an injunction that bars the IRS from sharing taxpayer data with DHS, labeling the claim “weak sauce.”
A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel affirmed a district court injunction that prohibits the IRS from transmitting taxpayer addresses to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, describing the administration’s appeal as “weak sauce.” The case originates from a 2025 directive by former IRS commissioner Billy Long that initiated the mass sharing of taxpayer data with the Department of Homeland Security to identify undocumented immigrants, affecting more than 40,000 individuals.
After widespread criticism, Long was dismissed and later appointed ambassador to Iceland. A February ruling found the IRS had breached its own statutes roughly 42,695 times by providing addresses without proper verification. DHS argued the injunction would force the IRS to disclose ongoing investigations, but the appellate court allowed sealed notifications to protect such activities. The judges warned that any continued disclosure could subject IRS employees to steep civil and criminal consequences.
Why it matters
The decision reinforces privacy protections and limits government overreach in sharing taxpayer information.
How the sides frame it
HIGH AGREEMENTAll camps report that the D.C. Circuit blocked the IRS-ICE data-sharing plan as unlawful, but left-leaning coverage mocks the Trump administration’s argument, while right-leaning coverage emphasizes the judges’ appointments and the egregiousness of the practice.
LEFT
Mocks the administration’s appeal as “weak sauce” and condemns the illegal IRS-ICE data sharing.
RIGHT
Highlights the court’s upholding of the injunction, stressing the practice was “most egregiously” illegal and noting the judges were appointed by Obama.
The left emphasises
- calls the administration’s argument “weak sauce”
- labels the IRS-ICE data sharing as illegal and a violation of federal law
- underscores the Trump administration’s role in the policy
The right emphasises
- describes the practice as “most egregiously” illegal
- mentions the judges were appointed by Barack Obama
- cites the number of addresses already disclosed before the injunction
In this story
