On March 15, 2024, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency issued a directive to employees of the Social Security Administration (SSA) requiring them to provide appointment details of individuals who are not U.S. citizens. The directive, which was distributed through internal memos, instructs SSA staff to forward records of noncitizen appointments to ICE for potential immigration enforcement actions. The request marks a departure from the long‑standing practice of keeping SSA data separate from immigration enforcement agencies.
Background
The SSA has historically maintained a strict separation between its administrative functions and immigration enforcement. Under the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, the agency is bound to protect the confidentiality of personal data, including the citizenship status of applicants. In the past, SSA has only shared information with ICE in limited circumstances, such as when a person is already in the process of a lawful immigration proceeding or when a court order requires disclosure.
The new directive, however, expands the scope of data sharing to include routine appointment details for all noncitizens, regardless of their immigration status. This includes the names, addresses, and dates of appointments for services such as disability benefits, retirement benefits, and Medicare enrollment. The directive does not specify whether the data will be used for enforcement actions against individuals who are in the country legally or who are in the process of applying for benefits.
Legal Context
The directive raises questions under several federal statutes. The Privacy Act requires that federal agencies protect personal information from disclosure without a lawful basis. The Social Security Act, which governs the administration of benefits, also imposes confidentiality obligations. Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets limits on the sharing of immigration data between agencies.
Legal scholars have noted that the directive may conflict with the SSA’s statutory duty to maintain the privacy of its records. The directive also appears to contravene the precedent set by the 1998 Supreme Court decision in *United States v. Alvarez*, which held that federal agencies cannot share personal data with immigration authorities without a clear statutory mandate. The new request could therefore be subject to judicial review.
Reactions
Civil rights organizations have expressed concern that the directive could expose noncitizens to increased risk of immigration enforcement. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a statement saying that the move “undermines the privacy protections that have been in place for decades.” The ACLU also warned that the directive could deter noncitizens from seeking essential services, thereby exacerbating existing disparities.
The National Association of Social Security Professionals (NASSP) released a brief that called for a review of the directive. The organization stated that “the SSA’s primary mission is to administer benefits fairly and efficiently, and this new requirement could compromise that mission.” The NASSP also urged the SSA to seek legal counsel before complying with the directive.
ICE officials have defended the request as a necessary step to enhance national security. In a brief statement, an ICE spokesperson said that the agency “requires timely access to relevant data to identify individuals who may pose a threat to public safety.” The spokesperson added that the directive is “in line with existing federal policies on data sharing.”
Implications for Noncitizens
The directive could increase the likelihood that noncitizens will be subject to ICE investigations. By providing ICE with appointment data, the agency may be able to identify individuals who are present in the country without lawful status. This could lead to detentions, deportations, or other enforcement actions that affect individuals who are otherwise engaged in routine interactions with the SSA.
The potential impact is particularly significant for undocumented immigrants who rely on SSA services for health care, disability benefits, or other essential needs. The directive may create a chilling effect, discouraging these individuals from seeking assistance due to fear of exposure to immigration enforcement.
Next Steps
The SSA has indicated that it will review the directive within 30 days of receipt. The agency has also stated that it will consult with legal counsel to determine whether the request complies with federal law. If the SSA determines that the directive is unlawful, it may file a lawsuit to block the requirement.
ICE has not announced a timeline for implementing the directive, but it has indicated that it will begin collecting data as soon as the SSA complies. The ACLU and other civil rights groups are preparing to file a petition for a preliminary injunction to halt the data sharing until a court can review the legality of the directive.
In the coming weeks, the SSA is expected to issue a formal response to ICE, and the legal debate over the directive’s constitutionality may move to the federal courts. The outcome of this dispute will have implications for the privacy rights of noncitizens and the relationship between federal agencies that handle social services and immigration enforcement.
