|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A lawsuit launched last year by a New Bedford-based organization landed before a panel of judges at the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday as attorneys sparred over an information sharing agreement between the Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Front and center in the hearing was the federal government’s attempt to lift a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Court Massachusetts Judge Indira Talwani in February that prohibits ICE from using taxpayer information obtained from the IRS.
The decision came as part of a lawsuit filed by the Community Economic Development Center of Southeastern Massachusetts that alleged the informational sharing between the agencies represented irreparable harm to its members.
Lawyers for the federal government attempted to argue that the CEDC did not have standing to continue the lawsuit, something Talwani recently reaffirmed in the lower court. They emphasized in arguments and a written brief that the request made by ICE to the IRS complied with statutory requirements.
Jacob Christensen, the assistant U.S. attorney who argued for the federal government at the hearing, said that although the initial request sought the names of 1.3 million people, the request was related to a specific “criminal investigation” to locate those with final removal orders.
“[Plaintiffs argue] it created a chilling effect that caused members of the community center to stop attending events or filing tax returns,” Christensen said. “The memorandum of understanding solely applies to those with a final removal order which means that members who do not have a final removal order are not in danger. They’re responding to a hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.”
The judicial panel, which included First Circuit Chief Judge David J. Barron, Judge Seth R. Aframe, and Judge Julie Rikelman, appeared skeptical of the government’s arguments.
“The harm [alleged] isn’t the [final] prosecution,” Barron said. “The harm is the disclosure of the information.”
Barron also questioned the broad interpretation of what constitutes an investigation.
“The concern would be whether you could comply with the statute by simply labeling people as ‘under investigation,’” he said.
Joshua Rosenthal, who represented the CEDC and other groups before the panel, kept his arguments simple.
“Our obligations to file and pay taxes apply regardless of immigration status or removal order,” he told the panel. “The District Court’s order here preserves the status quo.”
He also argued that the government’s interpretation of what constituted irreparable harm was narrow and extended beyond the three members of immigrant advocacy groups identified in documents from the initial case.
“Harms of disclosure constitute injury and those kinds of harms are inherently irreparable,” he said.
In their written response to the government’s initial appeal, lawyers for the CEDC also said that the government itself admitted that the requests being made were illegal.
“This request and receipt of data did not consider the devastating consequences on taxpayers, their families, and the U.S. tax system, let alone the statutory requirements,” the CEDC attorneys wrote in their response. “IRS later admitted that ICE’s request was facially unlawful, and that sharing certain data had been a mistake.”
Amicus briefings
In addition to the arguments made by attorneys, court records showed support for the CEDC from dozens of immigrant advocates nationwide who filed friend-of-the-court briefings. Dozens of members of Congress, including U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss, U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, and U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, also filed a briefing on their behalf.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell spearheaded another amicus briefing siding with the CEDC on behalf of 17 states and the District of Columbia alongside Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and D.C. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb.
“The Trump Administration’s immigration enforcement campaign has already inflicted incalculable human and economic harms,” the attorneys general wrote. “Those efforts have played out most visibly in images of masked agents swarming city streets, raiding high schools, and arresting children. But they have also involved the Administration’s quiet accumulation and misuse of massive data troves.”
It is unclear when the judges will come to a decision on the government’s appeal.
Contact Kevin G. Andrade at kandrade@newbedfordlight.org
