High Court reinstates DOGE's privileged access to confidential Social Security files; refuses to disclose requested records
Breaking: Supreme Court's Divided Decision on DOGE
Friday witnessed a significant turn of events at the Supreme Court, as the bench handed a pair of polarizing rulings to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The first decision granted DOGE permission to delve into highly sensitive Social Security data, while the second put a pause on an inquiry into DOGE's compliance with a transparency law.
In the principal decision, a large number of judges on the Supreme Court sanctioned DOGE to comb through data at the Social Security Administration. Critics have accused DOGE of engaging in a clandestine fishing expedition using ultra-sensitive data. In a unsigned order, the court stated, "Under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work."
Minutes following this ruling, the Supreme Court held back a lower court order that compelled DOGE to surrender documents as part of a lawsuit claiming the entity, like other government agencies, should be subject to federal records requests. Although the Supreme Court left open the possibility that some information may eventually be disclosed, it urged lower courts to "narrow" the scope of the investigation.
The three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson - reasoned differently and dissented from this decision.
These decisions served as fortifying victories for DOGE amidst a heatedStandoff between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, the tech billionaire who once helmed the entity as a crucial tool the White House leveraged to diminish and reshape the federal government.
The decision concerning Social Security data would hand DOGE staffers the highly sensitive data of millions of Americans. Jackson, in her dissent, expressed concerns about "grave privacy risks for millions of Americans."
The Trump administration's emergency appeal was the initial instance that spotlighted DOGE before the high court. US Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in court filings that the lower court had overstepped its bounds in controlling DOGE's ability to access data to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. The administration's victory in this dispute may have implications for other cases concerning DOGE's access to government data systems.
The trial judge in the Social Security case had ruled that challengers were likely to succeed in arguing that the administration had infringed on the Privacy Act by furnishing DOGE with the keys to closely guarded data systems, which contain Americans' financial records, medical information, and sensitive data pertaining to children. The Social Security Administration case was remarkable because of the substantial evidentiary record the trial judge utilized in issuing her preliminary injunction.
It was revealed that nearly a dozen DOGE affiliates have been stationed at the agency. A mid-level career official, who facilitated the DOGE team's access to the data despite the objections of Social Security Administration leadership, was placed on administrative leave. The Trump administration then elevated that official, Leland Dudek, to the position of acting commissioner. The Senate confirmed his replacement, Frank Bisignano, in early May.
DOGE's data access was first placed on hold with a temporary restraining order in March.
The Trump administration has outlined three specific projects that justify granting DOGE access to the systems: a project, known as "Are You Alive?" scrutinizing whether payments are improperly going to deceased individuals; a scrub of agency data, known as the Death Data Clean Up Project, to update records of people the government believes to be deceased; and the Fraud Detection Project, which is examining potential fraud in alterations people make to their records, including wage reporting and direct deposit information.
Who is DOGE?
Although technical, the separate case concerning DOGE records has given rise to fundamental questions about the power and transparency of an entity that has slashed agency budgets with unprecedented speed. A left-leaning watchdog, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sued to gain access to documents that would shed light on DOGE's operations.
Trump's emergency appeal to the Supreme Court requested that the justices halt a lower court order that would permit CREW to interrogate DOGE leadership and review documents to better comprehend the entity's role within the federal government.
The underlying question in the case is whether DOGE is an agency that, like most other parts of the federal government, is subject to public scrutiny. If it is, that could serve as a check on what DOGE can accomplish both by allowing the public to see what's happening behind the scenes, and by providing legal challengers with information they could use in court to potentially reverse some of its most drastic actions.
The Trump administration, which the president has repeatedly claimed is the most transparent in history, has aggressively contested the case, describing DOGE as a "presidential advisory body" within the White House that is tasked "with providing recommendations" rather than making decisions. Given these advisory functions, the Department of Justice argued, DOGE is exempt from FOIA requirements.
US District Judge Casey Cooper, nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, had ordered DOGE to turn over documents in the case and also approved a deposition of DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason. A federal appeals court in Washington, DC, declined to reverse the discovery decision. Cooper ruled in March that DOGE is likely covered by FOIA, which permits public interest groups and the media to obtain internal government records detailing agency conduct.
- The Supreme Court's decision granted DOGE, an entity often embroiled in politics, the authority to access highly sensitive Social Security data, drawing criticisms of potential privacy risks and clandestine investigations.
- The Trump administration's DOGE, involved in several controversial projects aimed at combating fraud and waste, has been the subject of general news, crime and justice, and policy and legislation.
- The ongoing legal battle between CREW and DOGE, a part of the federal government shrouded in secrecy, aims to ensure the transparency of the entity and hold it accountable for its actions.
- Despite increasing concerns about war-and-conflicts, the prevalence of car-accidents, and other important issues, the divided Supreme Court ruling on DOGE's access to sensitive data has raised questions about the public's ability to scrutinize government agencies and agencies' adherence to policy and legislation.
