A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Millet, Pillard, and Wilkins issued a preliminary injunction and a 705(a) interim stay under the APA regarding a government inquiry.
Posted by The Lawfare Podcast, Checked
- Sources
- 3 support1 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 80%
The Lawfare PodcastSep 14, 2026
The D.C. Circuit panel of Judges Millett, Pillard, and Wilkins unanimously affirmed the district court's Section 705 stay and preliminary injunction against IRS disclosures of taxpayer data to ICE/DHS, so the panel and the injunction/stay are confirmed.
What was said
… And there was only one specified reason for the inquiry, the same theoretical criminal statute, and they got 47,000 records. So the Center for Tax Rights sued, and the three-judge panel, unanimous, Judge Millet, Pillard, and Wilkins, all said that all that this was a issued. It's a preliminary injunction and a 705 a) interim stay under the APA, and of course these are all Democratic appointees, so it has no presidential weight. All right, finally, uh, Judge Preska in the Southern District of New York has thrown out, uh, Imran Ahmed's First Amendment challenge to possible, uh, deportation. …
The Lawfare Podcast · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. The GovInfo docket shows the September 8, 2026 per curiam judgment, from the panel of Millett, Pillard and Wilkins, affirming the district court's order staying the Data-Exchange Procedure under section 705 and preliminarily enjoining further disclosures.[1]
Supports. The FindLaw and midpage copies of the opinion, authored by Judge Pillard, confirm the panel composition and that the district court stayed the IRS procedure under 5 U.S.C. § 705 and preliminarily enjoined disclosures; the appeals court affirmed.[2][3]
Context. The Justia summary confirms the Center for Taxpayer Rights case concerned IRS sharing of return information with ICE, and that the district court issued the preliminary injunction, which the appellate court affirmed.[4]
Context. The claim's wording that the panel 'issued' the injunction and stay is a loose paraphrase: the district court issued them and the panel affirmed them, which is a minor imprecision rather than a contradiction of the core assertion.[1][4]
Sources
4 sources: 1 primary, 3 not rated
- 126-5006 - Center for Taxpayer Rights, et al v. IRS, et algovinfo.gov · primary source · cited for: supports, context
- 2CENTER FOR TAXPAYER RIGHTS v. INTERNAL REVENUE ...caselaw.findlaw.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 3Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS, 26-5006 - app.midpage.aiapp.midpage.ai · not rated · cited for: supports
- 4Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS, 26-5006 (D.C. Cir. 2026)supreme.justia.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- The DC Circuit panel that ruled on the SAVE system stay consisted of Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Robert Wilkins, and Judge Greg Katzis.True
- The DC Circuit ruled two-to-one against the government's request for a stay in the SAVE system case.True
- Judge Chutkan issued an order requiring 48 hours' notice before the government conducts any work beyond preliminary archaeological excavation.True
- The Postal Service issued a rule regarding mail-in ballots while subject to an injunction.True
- A district judge issued a nationwide injunction after Justice Scalia stated that district judges could not issue nationwide injunctions.Can’t tell