Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective
Lawsuits involving the Department of Government Efficiency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remove ads
The actions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), informally headed by Elon Musk, are the subject of ongoing lawsuits.[1] Legal experts have described many of DOGE's actions as illegal, breaking multiple privacy, security, and congressional laws and regulations. It has been described as taking a "move fast and break things" approach. Legal analysts have alleged breaches of law regarding aspects of the Privacy Act, Internal Revenue Code, and Federal Information Security Modernization Act. Forcing workers out of their offices and claims of "deleting" agencies and seizure of funds authorized by Congress have been described as breaking Article 1 of the United States Constitution and constituting a potential "constitutional crisis".[2][3][4][5]
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Legal proceedings have been complicated by difficulties in establishing basic facts, such as Musk's role, the identities and formal powers of his associates, and the unclear relationship among Musk, DOGE, and political appointees backed by Musk. There have also been questions about how many of Musk's associates have been detailed to specific agencies, whether they act as employees of those agencies or of the White House, and what formal powers they have to demand access to agency computer systems.[6][7]
On February 5, Republican members of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform blocked an effort by committee Democrats to subpoena Musk.[8] The White House and the Republican Party have defended DOGE, Musk, Trump, and other plaintiffs, stating they are in full compliance with federal law.
Remove ads
Disclosure of personal and financial records
Summarize
Perspective
Multiple lawsuits accuse DOGE and Musk of having broken the Privacy Act of 1974.[9] DOGE has given conflicting testimonies on the data it has accessed, the identity of the DOGE members who have accessed it, and the reasons why they did.[10]
Access to government computer systems
On February 5, several labors unions—the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, and Communication Workers of America—along with the Economic Policy Institute filed a lawsuit to prevent DOGE from accessing computer systems at the Department of Labor (DOL), subsequently amending the suit to also include systems at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). They asked for a temporary restraining order, which was denied on February 7. On February 27, the judge, John Bates, ordered the Trump administration to make four witnesses available for depositions, one each from DOGE and the three federal departments.[11][12][13]
On February 4, three federal employee unions—the Alliance for Retired Americans, the AFGE, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—filed a lawsuit against the Treasury Department,[a] alleging that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent unlawfully granted DOGE access to sensitive data. The White House defended Musk's role, stating he had followed all federal laws.[15][16][17] On February 6, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly agreed to a proposal filed by the Justice Department to temporarily limit DOGE to "read-only" access of Treasury data until a hearing for a preliminary injunction could be held on February 24. Department of Justice lawyers struggled to explain how DOGE plans to use sensitive taxpayer data.[18] In the hearing, Kollar-Kotelly said that she had "concerns about the constitutionality of U.S.D.S.'s structure and operations". She also questioned the government's lawyer about who the DOGE administrator is and what Musk's specific role is in DOGE, but the lawyer said that he didn't know.[19]
On February 7, the University of California Student Association filed a lawsuit[b] against acting secretary of education Denise Carter and the Department of Education (ED) in the District of Columbia, claiming an "enormous and unprecedented" "intrusion into individuals' privacy".[20][21][22] The case has been assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss.[23]
On February 7, the ACLU filed Freedom of Information Act requests with over 40 federal agencies "for any records that reveal whether DOGE or its representatives have sought or obtained access to databases containing personally identifiable information, financial records, healthcare data, or other sensitive government-held records of Americans".[24]
On February 11, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed its own lawsuit[c] to prevent DOGE from accessing the Office of Personnel Management's data.[25]
- Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00313[26]
- American Civil Liberties Union v. Social Security Administration (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01217[27]
- American Federation of Government Employees v. Office of Personnel Management (S.D.N.Y), 1:25-cv-01237[28]
- American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00339[29]
- American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-00596,[30] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1411,[31] appealed to the Supreme Court, Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 24A1063[32]
- American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00430,[33] appealed to the Fourth Circuit, 25-1282[34]
- Center for Taxpayer Rights v. Internal Revenue Service (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00457[35]
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (E.D.V.A.) 1:25-cv-00255[36]
- Morris v. Trump (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00435[37]
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00380[38]
- Nemeth-Greenleaf v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00407[39]
- State of New York v. Donald J. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01144[40]
- University of California Student Association v. Carter (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00354[41] (plaintiffs dismissed the action[1])
Compensation for access to data
On February 12, a class action suit[d] was filed against Musk, Office of Personnel Management, Department of the Treasury and Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent.[42] Gribbon v. Musk claims that taxpayers, federal employees and those receiving benefits should be compensated for DOGE's access to their personal and financial data.[42] It has been assigned to judge Christopher R. Cooper.
- Gribbon v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00422[43] (voluntary dismissal)
Federal deferred resignation program ("Fork in the Road" memo)
A lawsuit, filed[e] on January 27 in the District Court for the District of Columbia by two federal employees against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), alleges that it failed to conduct a federally mandated assessment to evaluate and mitigate privacy risks associated with the alleged new email system's data collection on federal employees.[44][45] On February 3, four unions representing 800,000 federal employees filed suit[f] against the Treasury Department, arguing that OPM violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a legal basis for the buyout offer.[46] On February 6, Judge George O'Toole Jr. temporarily blocked Trump and DOGE from engaging in any further action related to the buyout until further arguments were heard.[47] On February 12, Judge O'Toole ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the buyout offer because they were not directly affected.[48]
Remove ads
Dismantling of agencies
Summarize
Perspective
AmeriCorps
- State of Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-01363[51]
- Elev8 Baltimore, Inc. v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-01458[52]
- Erie County New York v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00783[53] (voluntary dismissal)
National Endowment for the Humanities
U.S. African Development Foundation
- Brehm v. Marocco (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00660[56]
US Agency for International Development (USAID) firings and shutdown
On February 6, a lawsuit[g] seeking to halt the shutdown of USAID was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by the American Foreign Service Association and the AFGE.[58] The judge, Carl J. Nichols, issued a temporary restraining order on February 7 against imminent plans for 2,200 employees to be placed on administrative leave and for overseas USAID workers to return to the US.[59] After a hearing, Judge Nichols extended the freeze through February 21.[60]
Nichols held a telephone hearing on February 19. After Trump-appointed USAID leader Peter Marocco initially told the court that overseas USAID employees would be given a choice as to whether remain abroad while on administrative leave, but days later told the court otherwise, Nichols called the government's contradictions "a mess" and ordered the DOJ to clarify its stance by February 20.[61]
- American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00352[62]
- AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00400,[63] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5046[64] and 25-5098,[65] appealed to the Supreme Court, Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, 24A831[66]
- Global Health Council v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00402[67]
- Personal Services Contractor Association v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00469[68]
Remove ads
Dismantling of independent organizations
US Institute of Peace
Establishment of DOGE
Summarize
Perspective
With the signing of Executive Order 14158, Trump renamed the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) the U.S. DOGE Service (also USDS), and established the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, both under the authority of an administrator. Trump referred to Elon Musk as being in charge of DOGE. Amy Gleason was later identified as the acting administrator.
Appointments clause lawsuits
A lawsuit by 26 USAID employees and contractors claims Elon Musk’s role as DOGE head violates the Appointments Clause, alleging he wields significant government authority without Senate confirmation.
On February 13, fourteen state attorneys general filed suit[h] against Musk, DOGE, and Trump in the District of Columbia, arguing that although Musk had been designated a special government employee, he was acting as a principal officer of the United States, and that the Appointments Clause required him to be confirmed by the Senate.[71] They requested a temporary restraining order preventing Musk and DOGE from firing employees or accessing information from multiple federal agencies. In its response, the Trump administration argued that Musk was a senior advisor to the president and had no formal authority.[72] On February 18, Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the request for the temporary restraining order, though she wrote that the states "legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight."[73]
- Does 1-26 v. Musk (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00462-TDC,[74] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1273[75]
- Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00643[76] (consolidated with State of New Mexico v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1.25-cv-00429)
- State of New Mexico. v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1.25-cv-00429,[77] petitioned the court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit (D. Cir.), In re: Elon Musk, 25-5072[78]
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) lawsuits
On January 20, the day of Trump's inauguration, The Washington Post learned of a pending lawsuit to be launched against DOGE minutes after Trump was to be sworn in, questioning whether DOGE is a presidential advisory commission obeying federal transparency rules about certain practices, such as disclosure and hiring.[79][80] The same day, three more lawsuits were filed against Trump, DOGE, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), alleging violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires that "the advisory committee have a fair balance in viewpoints represented, that they do not meet in secret, and that their records and work product be made available for public inspection".[81] All four lawsuits were filed in the District of Columbia.
The first suit[i] was filed by Public Citizen, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) against Trump and the OMB. The Center for Biological Diversity next filed suit against the OMB.[j] National Security Counselors sued DOGE, OMB, Office of Personnel Management, and multiple Trump administration officials,[k] while a coalition of non-government organizations filed suit against OMB and DOGE.[l][81]
Public Citizen, Lentini, and American Public Health Association were all assigned to Judge Jia M. Cobb; the government filed a motion to consolidate the cases on February 4, 2025, and they were consolidated on February 18.[82][83] Public Citizen dismissed its case without prejudice, but the other two cases continue.[1] Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior has been assigned to Judge Beryl A. Howell.
- American Public Health Association v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00167[84] (consolidated with case no. 1:25-cv-00164, Public Citizen v. Trump)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00612[85]
- Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00166[86] (consolidated with case no. 1:25-cv-00164, Public Citizen v. Trump)
- Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00164[87] (case consolidated with Lentini v. DOGE and American Public Health Association v. OMB; Public Citizen dismissed its case without prejudice, but the other two cases continue[1])
Remove ads
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), public records and record-keeping requirements
Summarize
Perspective
On February 11, watchdog organization American Oversight filed a lawsuit to gain access to all of Musk's communications involving the termination of employees across the federal government. Its lawsuit states that DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[88][89]
On February 19, the nonpartisan watchdog group Project on Government Oversight sued Trump, DOGE, and the DOGE administrator over the claim that DOGE records are subject to the Presidential Records Act, and therefore not subject to public records requests. The lawsuit argues that DOGE is subject to the Federal Records Act since it is acting like a federal agency.[89]
On February 20, watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued DOGE to produce documents via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[90] On March 10, the presiding judge, Christopher R. Cooper, ordered DOGE to produce the documents for CREW, finding that DOGE's "secrecy" and "rapid pace" warranted "quick release of information about its structure and activities".[91][92] While making his ruling, Cooper concluded that "the authority exercised by [DOGE] across the federal government and the dramatic cuts it has apparently made with no congressional input appear to be unprecedented".[91][93] Cooper found that DOGE "obtained unprecedented access to sensitive personal and classified data and payment systems across federal agencies" and "appears to have the power not just to evaluate federal programs, but to drastically reshape and even eliminate them wholesale".[90][93] In mid-April, Cooper ordered additional discovery and ruled that Amy Gleason, DOGE's acting administrator, would have to sit for a deposition. The Department of Justice (DOJ) then petitioned the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for a writ of mandamus to prevent the deposition.[94] The appeals court stayed Cooper's ruling while it considered the petition, but on May 14, it rejected the petition.[95] On May 21, the DOJ appealed to the Supreme Court, asking it to stay Cooper's order and claiming that it was inappropriate to allow discovery before the court had determined whether DOGE was subject to FOIA.[96]
- American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00409[97]
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00165[98]
- Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01768[99]
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00511,[100] petition for a writ of mandamus (D.C. Cir.), In re: U.S. DOGE Service, 25-5130,[101] appealed to the Supreme Court as U.S. DOGE Service v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 24A1122[102]
- Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00684[103]
- Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Marshals Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00749[104]
- The Intercept v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02404[105]
- Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00527[106]
Remove ads
Large-scale reductions in force
Summarize
Perspective
Class action lawsuits
Thousands of federal employees have joined class action suits challenging the layoffs.[107]
On February 21, the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that investigates federal workers' complaints, decided that, in a case involving six probationary government workers at six different agencies, the workers had been illegally fired. The decision was revealed on February 24.[108]
- American Association of People With Disabilities v. Dudek (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00977[109]
- American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Ezell (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-01780,[110] appealed to the Ninth Circuit, 25-1677,[111] and Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees (Supreme Court), 24A904[112]
- American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-03698,[113] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-3030[114]
- American Library Association v. Sonderling, 1:25-cv-01050[115]
- Jackson v. Kennedy (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01750[116]
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald J. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00420[117] (voluntarily dismissed)
- Pueblo of Isleta v. Secretary of the Department of the Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00696[118]
- State of Maryland v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00748,[119] appealed to the Fourth Circuit, 25-1248[120]
Remove ads
Pauses and terminations of federal funds
Summarize
Perspective
Denial of grants
Impoundment of allocated funds
- Sustainability Institute v. Trump (D.S.C.), 2:25-cv-02152[123]
Treasury payments
District of Rhode Island
On January 28, twenty-two state attorneys general filed suit[m] against Trump and the Treasury Department in the District of Rhode Island for a temporary retraining order (TRO) barring Trump from pausing any further federal aid.[124][125] On January 31, Judge John J. McConnell Jr., granted the TRO, effectively blocking Trump's federal aid freeze.[126][127] On February 10, finding that the Trump administration had failed to fully comply with the order, McConnell directed the Trump administration to immediately end any federal funding pause and restore previously frozen funds until a final ruling was made on a permanent injunction to be heard at a later time.[128][129]
The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said that "every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful".[130] The First Circuit refused to hear the appeal.[131]
Republican US Representative Andrew Clyde (GA-9) announced plans to file articles of impeachment against McConnell, calling him a "partisan activist weaponizing our judicial system to stop President Trump's funding freeze on woke and wasteful government spending".[132]
Southern District of New York
On February 7, nineteen state attorneys general, largely the same from the Rhode Island federal case, filed suit[n] against Trump and the Treasury Department in the Southern District of New York over DOGE's actions within the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS).[133][134] It was initially assigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer for an emergency ruling,[135] and early the next morning, he issued a preliminary injunction barring DOGE members from accessing Treasury data and ordering all existing unauthorized copies to be deleted immediately.[136]
The White House called the ruling "absurd and judicial overreach" and referred to Engelmayer as an "activist". Musk posted similar sentiments on X and claimed Engelmayer was protecting scammers.[137] Conservative activist Charlie Kirk encouraged the Trump administration to defy the order should it become permanent.[137] That weekend, JD Vance posted on X that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power". Arkansas senator Tom Cotton called Engelmayer an "outlaw".[138]
The case was taken on by the judge assigned to the case, Jeannette Vargas, who on February 11 adjusted Engelmayer's ruling by allowing Treasury secretary Scott Bessent and other senior department leaders whose roles required Senate confirmation to access Treasury data.[139] A hearing was held before Vargas on February 14; she extended the injunction and said she would rule shortly on whether it would remain in place throughout the proceedings.[140][141][142] The case is expected to last months.[143]
Remove ads
Removal of independent agency heads
Inter-American Foundation
Requirement for employees to report accomplishments
On February 22, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent an email to all federal employees, asking them to respond with "what you accomplished last week" by midnight EST on February 24. Shortly before the email went out, Musk posted about it on X, saying that "Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation." A claim that this action was unlawful was added to a pending lawsuit against the OPM for the mass layoffs of probationary workers. Some agencies instructed their employees not to respond to the email.[146] On February 24, the OPM announced that employees were not required to respond to the email.[147]
Review of voter registration information
- Democratic National Committee v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00952[148] (consolidated with League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00946[149]
- League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00955[150] (consolidated with League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President)
Remove ads
Case summaries
Remove ads
See also
Notes
- Univ. of California Student Ass'n v. Carter, No. 1:25-cv-00354 (D.D.C. February 7, 2025)
- Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. U.S. Off. of Personnel Mgmt., No. 1:25-cv-01237 (S.D.N.Y. February 11, 2025)
- Gribbon v. Musk, No. 1:25-cv-00422 (D.D.C. February 12, 2025)
- Jane Does 1–2 v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 1:25-cv-00234 (D.D.C. January 27, 2025)
- New York et al. v. Scott Bessent et al., No. 25-313 (D.D.C. February 3, 2025)
- New Mexico v. Musk, No. 25-cv-429 (D.D.C. February 13, 2025)
- Public Citizen v. Trump, No. 25-cv-164 (D.D.C. January 20, 2025)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget, No. 25-165 (D.D.C. January 20, 2025)
- Lentini v. Dept. of Government Efficiency, No. 1:25-cv-00166 (D.D.C. January 20, 2025)
- Amer. Public Health Ass'n v. Office of Management and Budget, No. 25-cv-167 (D.D.C. January 20, 2025)
- New York et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:25-cv-00039 (D.R.I. January 28, 2025)
- New York et al. v. Trump et al., No. 25-CV-1144 (S.D.N.Y. February 7, 2025)
References
External links
Wikiwand - on
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Remove ads