2026-09-08T19:22:33.387Z / 路透社
2026年2月1日摄于美国华盛顿特区的美国国税局大楼。路透社/肯·塞德诺
- 摘要
- 法院认定国税局2025年向移民海关执法局共享了约4.7万个纳税人地址
- 移民海关执法局曾申请获取多达128万个纳税人地址
- 法院称国税局此举违反了水门事件后出台的联邦法律
9月8日（路透社）——美国一家上诉法院周二维持了一项禁令，叫停美国国税局允许向移民当局共享数千名纳税人地址的政策，称特朗普政府的这一做法违反了联邦法律。
美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院的一个三名法官组成的合议庭
裁定，国税局去年根据该政府为扩大移民执法力度而采取的一项程序，向美国移民和海关执法局（ICE）披露了约4.7万个纳税人地址。
通过《每日案卷》新闻简报获取晨间最新法律资讯，发送邮件订阅。点击此处注册。
国税局和负责监管移民海关执法局的美国国土安全部未回应置评请求。
根据两机构间的一项协议，国税局于2025年7月开始处理移民海关执法局的申请，为多达128万名涉嫌非法居留美国的人员查询其最后已知地址。
国税局出台了一项程序，允许移民海关执法局只要在地址栏中提供5位或9位数字即可获取纳税人信息，即便该数字并非实际邮政编码。
包括纳税人权利中心和主街联盟在内的多个团体提起诉讼，称该做法非法。一名下级法院法官认同了这一说法并叫停了该政策，而此时国税局已向移民海关执法局共享了47289条记录。
唐纳德·特朗普总统政府在上诉中辩称，该裁决妨碍了联邦执法工作。
“但这是对国会的抱怨，而非对法院的，”美国巡回法官科妮莉亚·皮拉德在上诉法院的裁决书中说道。
皮拉德与该三名法官合议庭的其他成员一样，均由民主党总统巴拉克·奥巴马任命。
理查德·尼克松总统任期内的水门丑闻曝光了美国纳税人信息遭滥用的问题后，国会禁止国税局向其他政府机构共享信息，除非相关机构符合严格的条件。
皮拉德表示，特朗普执政时期国税局采用的程序在多个方面违反了联邦法律，其中“最严重的是”，该程序甚至未要求移民海关执法局按照法律规定提供纳税人的实际地址。
皮拉德称，该做法“自动对数百万条记录进行审查，未进行任何个人审核，也未采取其他任何手段确保释放每位纳税人信息符合法律先决条件”。
自由派法律组织“民主前进”的代表原告律师斯凯·佩里曼在一份声明中表示，她对法院“采取行动制止这种非法行为”感到欣慰。
她说：“后水门时代出台的隐私法旨在防止此类权力滥用。”
内特·雷蒙德在波士顿报道
IRS under Trump unlawfully shared taxpayer info with immigration authorities, court rules
2026-09-08T19:22:33.387Z / Reuters
A view of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) building, in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 1, 2026. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno
- Summary
- Court says IRS shared roughly 47,000 taxpayer addresses with ICE in 2025
- ICE had requested as many as 1.28 million taxpayer addresses
- Court says IRS move flouted post-Watergate federal law
Sept 8 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday upheld an injunction blocking an Internal Revenue Service policy that allowed it to share thousands of taxpayers’ addresses with immigration authorities, saying the Trump administration’s practice violated federal law.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
ruled that the IRS last year disclosed roughly 47,000 taxpayer addresses to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under a procedure adopted as part of the administration’s efforts to expand immigration enforcement.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
The IRS and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, did not respond to requests for comment.
Under an agreement between the agencies, the IRS in July 2025 began processing ICE requests for the last known addresses of as many as 1.28 million people suspected of unlawfully residing in the United States.
The IRS adopted a procedure that allowed ICE to obtain information on taxpayers if it provided a five- or nine-digit number in an address field, even if that number was not an actual ZIP code.
Groups including the Center for Taxpayer Rights and the Main Street Alliance sued, arguing the practice was unlawful. A lower-court judge agreed and blocked the policy, by which time the IRS had already shared 47,289 records with ICE.
President Donald Trump’s administration on appeal contended the ruling hindered federal law enforcement.
“But that’s a gripe with Congress, not the court,” U.S. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard said in the appeals court’s ruling.
Pillard, like the rest of the three-judge panel, was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama.
After the Watergate scandal during President Richard Nixon’s era exposed abuses of U.S. taxpayers’ information, Congress barred the IRS sharing information with other government agencies unless they complied with stringent conditions.
Pillard said the procedures the IRS under Trump adopted violated federal law in numerous ways, including “most egregiously” by not even requiring ICE to provide an actual address for a taxpayer as legally required.
The practice, Pillard said, “automates the review of millions of records without any individual review or any other means of ensuring compliance with the legal prerequisites to releasing each individual taxpayer’s information.”
Skye Perryman, whose liberal legal group Democracy Forward represented the plaintiffs, in a statement said she was pleased the court “acted to stop this unlawful behavior.”
“The privacy laws enacted in the post-Watergate era exist to prevent abuses of power just like this,” she said.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston
发表回复