The order by U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich came amid a lawsuit by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, an immigrant-rights aid 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 woman, so that would be her order.) //

Under the tax code, those records are kept confidential and may not be shared outside the IRS, unless a particular statutory exception applies. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a). As relevant here, one such exception, § 6103(i)(2), allows the head of any federal agency to request tax return information to aid in investigating or preparing for a judicial or administrative proceeding to enforce designated criminal statutes. Id. § 6103(i)(2). //

Also on Monday, Friedrich denied the motion of American Oversight (a group involved in several suits against the Trump administration) to intervene in the case. In doing so, she noted that she was unsealing most of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the IRS and DHS, along with the parties' briefs, thus obviating American Oversight's contention that intervention was warranted to access the documents at issue:

The MOU is a central focus of this litigation, and the information contained in the redacted MOU has been widely discussed, including on the record in open court at the April 16, 2025 preliminary injunction motion hearing. Although the government objects to its full disclosure, it has not asserted a compelling interest 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 is essential 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 will not order, however, that the IRS "points of contact" on page 13 of the MOU be unsealed. With respect to those lower level government employees, the Court concludes that their personal privacy interests outweigh any public need to access their names and contact information.