Federal Judge Halts Medicaid Data Sharing with ICE, Citing Privacy Violations

The personal health information of 79 million vulnerable Americans is no longer being funneled to immigration enforcement agents. A federal judge has issued a decisive blow against a controversial Trump administration policy, ordering the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to immediately cease sharing Medicaid enrollees’ sensitive personal data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, blocks a secretive data-sharing arrangement that sparked outrage from privacy advocates and state officials nationwide.

Why Did 20 States Sue Over Medicaid Data Sharing?

The legal battle erupted after revelations that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., began providing ICE with extensive personal details of Medicaid enrollees starting in June 2025. This included Social Security numbers, home addresses, and other identifiers – information belonging to every participant in the nation’s largest public health insurance program, covering low-income families, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people with disabilities. Crucially, these data-sharing agreements were never publicly announced. Internal CMS officials reportedly attempted to block the transfers but were overruled by senior advisers to Secretary Kennedy.

“Using CMS data for immigration enforcement threatens to significantly disrupt the operation of Medicaid, a program that Congress has deemed critical for providing health coverage to the nation’s most vulnerable residents,” Judge Chhabria wrote in his ruling granting a preliminary injunction. (Court Order, States v. HHS, August 2025)

The judge, appointed by President Obama, noted a critical contradiction: ICE had maintained a 12-year policy against using Medicaid data for enforcement, and CMS itself had long-standing policies restricting the use of patient information strictly to healthcare program operations. Chhabria sharply criticized the agencies for abruptly reversing these policies without providing any reasoned justification or public process. “The record in this case strongly suggests that no such [decision-making] process occurred,” he stated.

How Did the Secret Data-Sharing Policy Unfold?

The scale and secrecy of the data transfer alarmed state attorneys general. Prompted by initial disclosures in June 2025, a coalition of 20 states, led by California and Washington, filed a lawsuit. Despite the litigation, HHS entered into a second agreement in July 2025, granting DHS daily access to the Medicaid data stream. Both agreements remained hidden from public view until exposed through legal action and media reports.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta condemned the administration’s actions: “The move to use Medicaid data for immigration enforcement upended longstanding policy protections without notice or consideration for the consequences. As the president continues to overstep his authority in his inhumane anti-immigrant crusade, this is a clear reminder that he remains bound by the law.” (Statement, California DOJ, August 2025)

Privacy experts and immigrant rights groups raised immediate alarms about the chilling effect. They argued that individuals, including U.S. citizen family members of immigrants, might avoid seeking essential medical care – especially emergency services covered for all under federal law – for fear that their information would be used to target them or their loved ones for deportation. Concerns about violations of HIPAA privacy rules and federal Medicaid confidentiality statutes were also central to the states’ legal challenge.

What Does the Injunction Mean for Medicaid Enrollees and Immigration Policy?

Judge Chhabria’s preliminary injunction halts the data sharing specifically for the 20 plaintiff states until HHS provides adequate legal justification for its policy reversal or until the lawsuit concludes. This represents a significant setback for the administration’s broader strategy, championed by President Trump, of leveraging vast government databases to locate and deport migrants.

While immigrants without legal status are generally barred from full Medicaid enrollment, federal law mandates that all states provide emergency Medicaid coverage. This ensures lifesaving care in emergency rooms for anyone, regardless of citizenship status. Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown emphasized the ruling’s core principle: “Protecting people’s private health information is vitally important. Everyone should be able to seek medical care without fear of what the federal government may do with that information.” (Statement, Washington State AG, August 2025)

The administration’s covert attempt to weaponize healthcare data for deportation has been halted, safeguarding the privacy of 79 million Medicaid beneficiaries. Judge Chhabria’s ruling underscores that even in contentious policy arenas like immigration, government agencies must adhere to legal processes and respect foundational privacy protections. This decision reinforces a critical boundary: health information provided in trust for medical care cannot be secretly repurposed for enforcement actions. Share this critical update on healthcare privacy rights.

Must Know

1. What personal Medicaid data was being shared with ICE?
   The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provided Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with highly sensitive information, including Social Security numbers and home addresses, of all 79 million Medicaid enrollees nationwide. This data transfer began secretly in June 2025.
2. Why did the judge block the Medicaid data sharing?
   U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to follow required legal procedures when they reversed long-standing policies (a 12-year ICE policy and CMS privacy rules) against using Medicaid data for immigration enforcement. He found the agencies provided no justification for the change.
3. Who sued to stop the Medicaid information sharing?
   A coalition of 20 state Attorneys General, led by California and Washington, filed the lawsuit. They argued the secret data sharing violated federal privacy laws (like HIPAA and Medicaid confidentiality statutes), posed Fourth Amendment concerns, and would deter people from seeking essential healthcare.
4. Can undocumented immigrants get any Medicaid coverage?
   While undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for full Medicaid benefits, federal law requires all states to provide “emergency Medicaid.” This covers critical, lifesaving services in emergency rooms for anyone, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.
5. What happens next with the Medicaid data sharing policy?
   The preliminary injunction stops the data sharing for the 20 plaintiff states immediately. The injunction remains in place until HHS provides a legally sufficient justification for its new policy or until the full lawsuit reaches its final conclusion, which could involve a permanent ban.