On Tuesday, a federal judge rejected a request by 14 state attorneys general to block DOGE and Elon Musk from accessing sensitive federal data or firing agency staff who resist such access.
A MUSK WIN
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in a 10-page opinion that she could not temporarily enjoin Musk because the potential “extreme financial and programmatic harm” the states would suffer due to reduced federal funding and eliminated federal-state contract was currently just speculation.
“The court is aware that DOGE’s unpredictable actions have resulted in considerable uncertainty and confusion for Plaintiffs and many of their agencies and residents,” the Barack Obama appointee wrote. “But the ‘possibility’ that defendants may take actions that irreparably harm plaintiffs ‘is not enough.’”
New Mexico led the suit, which was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Arizona, Michigan, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington state joined as plaintiffs.
“[Musk] exercises virtually unchecked power across the Executive branch, making decisions about expenditures, contracts, government property, regulations, and the very existence of federal agencies,” the states argue.
They add that Musk and DOGE agents have gained access to sensitive information systems and technological and financial infrastructure throughout the government. With such unfettered access and authority, the states argue Musk has terminated employees en masse, transferred data to outside services, and terminated contracts “valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars.”
“Defendants concede that there is no apparent ‘source of legal authority granting’ Musk or DOGE ‘the power to order personnel actions’ at federal agencies but do not deny that defendants are taking such actions,” Chutkan wrote.
In her opinion, Chutkan addressed a declaration filed by Joshua Fisher, director of the Office of Administration within the Executive Office of the President, that maintained Musk did not lead DOGE.
Fisher wrote that Musk is merely an adviser to the president and has no official ties to DOGE and no authority to make government decisions.
“He is not an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service or U.S. DOGE Service temporary organization,” Fisher said. “Mr. Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service administrator.”
Fisher did not clarify who heads the nongovernmental agency in the two-page declaration.
Further, Justice Department attorneys said on Monday that neither of Trump’s executive orders regarding DOGE granted it authority to “order personnel actions” at any federal agencies.
Chutkan, writing in a footnote, said that the plain text of Trump’s executive orders refutes that characterization and seems to require that any new career agency hires be made in consultation with DOGE and prevent agencies from filing any vacancies that DOGE says should not be filled.
“At a minimum, this language ‘contemplates’ DOGE’s authority over personnel actions,” Chutkan wrote. “Defense counsel is reminded of their duty to make truthful representations to the court.”
Musk himself has acted as if he has at least some involvement in DOGE’s activities, regularly posting on X, formerly Twitter, about DOGE and even appearing in the Oval Office to speak with the media on Feb. 11.
In their initial complaint, the Democratic attorneys general requested a broad injunction that would bar Musk from issuing orders to anyone in the executive branch outside of DOGE itself and declare all his actions to date as illegal and without effect.
After an initial hearing on Friday, the states filed a revised proposed temporary restraining order.
They narrowed their requested injunction to enjoin Musk and DOGE agents from accessing, copying, or transferring any data systems at the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, and Commerce and prevent the termination of any staff within those agencies.
Chutkan heard arguments Monday on the states’ new proposal but doubted she could issue the requested relief based on the case’s limited record.
Instead, she said, the states primarily relied on news reports that speculated about the impacts of Musk and DOGE’s actions, some of which could be addressed via further litigation.
“The courts can’t act based on media reports,” Chutkan said.
Local News Via - MyrtleBeachSC.com
