A panel of Obama-appointed federal appellate judges is now reportedly facing sharp criticism after using casual slang to dismiss the government’s legal argument in a closely watched immigration case, with critics blasting the language as unprofessional and embarrassing for the federal judiciary.
D.C. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2013, wrote that the administration’s position was “weak sauce” in a ruling addressing whether the IRS improperly shared taxpayer information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The case turns on whether the IRS violated federal tax-confidentiality law by handing over tens of thousands of taxpayer addresses to ICE after the agency requested data on more than a million suspected illegal immigrants.
The panel, made up entirely of Obama appointees, Pillard along with Judges Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins, upheld a lower court’s order blocking the IRS from continuing to share data with ICE under its current process. The judges found that ICE frequently submitted requests that were “either incomplete or insufficiently populated,” yet the IRS handed over the taxpayer addresses regardless, in what the panel found likely violated federal tax privacy law.
The plaintiffs in the case, which include the Center for Taxpayer Rights, Main Street Alliance, and two labor unions, argued that the IRS failed to properly verify that ICE’s requests met the legal requirements needed to justify releasing sensitive taxpayer data.
Pillard’s use of the phrase “weak sauce,” slang for an argument that falls flat and lacks real substance, quickly drew fire online. Conservative attorney William Shipley called it “an embarrassment to the Court,” arguing that fellow judges should have flagged the phrase and suggested different wording before publication, warning it would now be cited in future cases and “look sophomoric and unserious.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton went further, accusing the three judges of abusing their power to “impair basic immigration law enforcement” and declaring that the country faces “a judicial integrity crisis in the federal courts.”
Other critics online focused specifically on the tone of the ruling itself. One user argued that inserting slang into a judicial opinion “goes beyond legal decorum” and is “unprofessional across the board,” while another said the growing use of popular slang in court rulings “is getting out of hand.” A Washington, D.C. attorney simply urged courts to “make legal writing formal again,” and another commenter questioned whether the language belonged in a formal legal opinion at all.
The ruling arrives as President Trump has made immigration enforcement a central focus of his administration, pushing to expand border security, detention capacity, and deportations while ICE continues to ramp up arrests nationwide.
Fox News Digital reached out to the D.C. Circuit, the Department of Homeland Security, and the IRS for comment.
[READ MORE: Emergency Crew Rescues Injured Construction Worker From Scaffolding At White House North Portico]
