WASHINGTON (AP) — While various elements of President Donald Trump ’s policy initiatives encounter hurdles due to litigation, Elon Musk ’s Department of Government Efficiency appears to be faring better in the courts.
Labor unions, Democrats, and federal employees have initiated multiple lawsuits claiming that DOGE is trampling on privacy rights and overstepping its authority against other governmental branches.
However, judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican administrations have not always sided with these claims, at least up to this point. Particularly notable is the failure of DOGE opponents to secure temporary restraining orders to restrict Musk’s team from accessing sensitive government databases.
“It is not the responsibility of the federal courts to oversee the security of the information systems within the executive branch,” U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss stated in a case involving the Office of Personnel Management. Moss was appointed by President Barack Obama.
This success is remarkable in light of the numerous legal obstacles Trump has faced, which have momentarily stalled his attempts to limit birthright citizenship, halt congressionally approved foreign aid, and impede certain healthcare services for transgender youth.
If Musk’s adversaries continue to find it challenging to gain legal momentum, he may proceed largely unimpeded in his efforts to streamline the federal government and its workforce.
“The ongoing legal victories for the Trump administration should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with our esteemed Constitution, which clearly delineates the responsibilities of the Executive Branch, and which President Trump and his administration are adhering to meticulously,” stated Harrison Fields, the White House deputy press secretary. “The resistance movement can attempt to intervene, but they will continue to falter in their efforts to reinterpret the Constitution and undermine the President’s legal authority to lead the Executive Branch.”
Cary Coglianese, a specialist in administrative law and regulatory processes at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, mentioned that plaintiffs have struggled to demonstrate potential irreparable harm if DOGE’s initiatives proceed.
“This is a rapidly advancing train, and they’re far ahead of the judiciary,” he remarked.
Skye Perryman, the head of Democracy Forward, an advocacy organization coordinating lawsuits against the Trump administration, assured that they would persist in exerting legal pressure on the White House.
“We have yet to see a federal judge examine DOGE’s actions and validate them,” she noted.
One exception to DOGE’s legal triumphs pertains to two lawsuits concerning Treasury Department systems responsible for distributing trillions in federal funds. These databases may contain sensitive data such as bank accounts and Social Security numbers, and are generally managed solely by nonpartisan career officials.
A judge in Washington has limited DOGE’s access to two staff members, while another in New York has temporarily halted DOGE’s operations entirely.
Norm Eisen, an attorney who represented House Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, stated it is premature to conclude that the legal challenges will be unsuccessful. He emphasized that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, also appointed by Obama, raised concerns about Musk’s seemingly “unchecked authority” in a case regarding federal data and workforce reductions.
While she did not grant a temporary restraining order sought by Democratic attorneys general from 14 states, Chutkan indicated they could still form a compelling argument asserting that Musk and DOGE have violated the Constitution as the case unfolds.
Eisen is representing current and former employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which Musk and Trump have shut down. His lawsuit argues that Musk and DOGE are wielding powers that should rightfully belong only to elected officials or those confirmed by the Senate.
“These are not trivial matters,” Eisen declared. “These are fundamental issues directly related to our Constitution and laws.”
John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, highlighted that a crucial factor has been the administration’s assertion that Musk acts as a presidential advisor without independent authority. He noted parallels to a legal case from the 1990s, when Hillary Clinton led a healthcare task force as First Lady, which a federal appeals court ruled did not need to adhere to open meeting laws.
“That’s how they are winning these lawsuits,” Yoo explained. “They’re attempting to navigate within the boundaries established by the D.C. circuit.”
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman conducted over three hours of arguments Wednesday regarding a request for a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit challenging DOGE’s access to personal information collected by the federal government.
She refrained from issuing a decision and expressed doubt regarding the labor unions’ claims. Nevertheless, she probed the administration’s lawyers about why DOGE representatives “need to have extensive access.”
Emily Hall from the Justice Department explained that DOGE was charged with making “broad, sweeping reforms” necessitating such access.
“That’s quite a vague response,” Boardman replied, who was appointed by President Joe Biden.
A significant win for Trump and Musk occurred in Boston, where U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. permitted the administration to execute its deferred resignation program.
Typically referred to as a buyout, this program allows employees to resign while receiving compensation until September 30. It faced opposition from several labor unions, but O’Toole ruled against them on procedural grounds, stating they lacked standing to sue. O’Toole was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
Moss, the judge in the case concerning the Office of Personnel Management, also opted not to restrict Musk’s team from reviewing Education Department data. He noted that DOGE representatives had attested in court documents that they would comply with laws regarding information sharing.
U.S. District Judge John Bates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, similarly refrained from hindering DOGE’s participation in the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Though Bates expressed “serious concerns” regarding the privacy implications of this legally intricate matter, he determined that the evidence at this point did not warrant a court intervention.
Administration attorneys stated that the DOGE team was not “acting recklessly, accessing any data system they wish” and that they had undergone security training and signed nondisclosure agreements.
___
