A federal judge ruled on Monday that the Internal Revenue Service is permitted to provide taxpayer information to U.S. immigration officials. This decision came after an injunction request claimed that the Trump administration was misusing this sensitive data to illegally locate individuals for immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, concluded that there is no proof the IRS data would be used for anything aside from identifying individuals under criminal investigation, as the Department of Homeland Security has indicated.

“The Court agrees that requesting and receiving information for civil enforcement purposes would constitute a cognizable injury, but none of the organizations have established that such an injury is imminent,” Friedrich wrote in a memorandum opinion and order.

“As the plaintiffs acknowledge, the Memorandum only allows sharing information for criminal investigations,” she added. “The Court cannot assume that DHS intends to use the shared information to facilitate civil rather than criminal proceedings.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Friedrich’s ruling comes amid a lawsuit brought by immigrant rights groups against Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, along with the IRS and DHS, over the tax information being shared. Plaintiffs include Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, Immigrant Solidarity DuPage, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, and Inclusive Action for the City.

“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?” Friedrich wrote. “It does not.”

In prior filings, the immigrant groups argued that if the IRS “unlawfully disclosed” the taxpayer information to enforcement authorities, it would “irreparably destroy the confidence” that taxpaying immigrant workers have placed in the IRS’s “prior assurances that their personal information would be protected.”