the news now

The world's news, cross-checked among reputable sources.

This is a new development in a story we have covered before · earlier coverage

US Appeals Court Rules IRS Sharing of Taxpayer Data with ICE Was Unlawful

3 sources across 3 countries · Brazil · Germany · United Kingdom

Who reported this

  • Folha de S.Paulo Brazil · Centre · Grupo Folha (Frias family)
  • Der Spiegel Germany · Centre-left · ~50% staff-owned
  • Reuters United Kingdom · Centre · Thomson Reuters Corporation

What the colours mean

  • Left
  • Centre-left
  • Centre
  • Centre-right
  • Right
  • A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.

Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.

Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.

The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.

A federal appeals court in the District of Columbia has upheld a preliminary injunction blocking a policy from the Donald Trump administration that allowed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to share taxpayer addresses with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The court ruled that the practice violated federal law, which has protected confidential taxpayer data since the Watergate scandal. According to court documents, the IRS shared approximately 47,000 records with ICE before the policy was blocked, and the government had begun processing requests for the last known addresses of up to 1.28 million people suspected of residing illegally in the United States.

Judge Cornelia Pillard, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, stated that the IRS procedures were flagrant violations of the law because they did not require ICE to provide a taxpayer's actual address and automated the analysis of millions of records without individual evaluations. The Trump administration argued that the decision hindered the enforcement of federal law, but the court responded that such grievances should be addressed to Congress rather than the judiciary. The White House retains the option to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Legal representatives for the plaintiffs, including Democracy Forward and Public Citizen, praised the ruling for upholding privacy laws and ensuring that non citizens receive the same data protections as other taxpayers. The IRS and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment.

How each side framed it

Centre-left
This report framed the event as a victory for the privacy rights of migrants and linked the policy to the broader goal of implementing mass deportations.
Centre
These reports focused on the legal specifics of the ruling, the historical context of the Watergate privacy laws, and the specific number of records shared.

Sources

100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.