Judge denies Democrat-led effort to block DOGE access, citing lack of proven harm

In a recent ruling, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan declined to block Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing government data or firing federal employees. The judge’s decision came after a coalition of 14 Democratic-led states failed to provide sufficient evidence of harm caused by DOGE’s access to federal personnel information.

The lawsuit, which was filed by New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez and joined by attorneys general from 13 other states, argued that Musk’s leadership role in DOGE represented an “unlawful delegation of executive power.” They claimed that allowing a private citizen such broad authority could lead to widespread disruption among government employees and contractors.

Despite expressing some sympathy for the plaintiffs’ concerns during the hearing, Judge Chutkan ultimately ruled that they had not met the legal standard of demonstrating imminent harm required for a temporary restraining order. She emphasized the need for concrete evidence of harm rather than generalized fears.

DOGE, created by executive order earlier this year, has a mandate to optimize the federal government’s operations, streamline processes, and reduce costs within an 18-month timeframe. Musk and his team have been quick to implement changes aimed at fulfilling President Donald Trump’s promises to cut government waste and reduce spending.

The Justice Department argued that DOGE’s personnel are considered “detailed” U.S. government employees entitled to access government data under the Economy Act. Recent court victories have allowed DOGE to continue its operations, despite ongoing legal challenges across the country.

Plaintiffs have raised concerns about DOGE’s authority violating the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires high-level government officials to be nominated and confirmed by the Senate. They argue that Musk’s actions, including budget cuts and employee layoffs, exceed the president’s constitutional authority.

While Judge Chutkan acknowledged the seriousness of some of the plaintiffs’ claims, she maintained that a generalized fear of harm was not enough to warrant blocking DOGE’s access to government data. The ruling has left the plaintiffs uncertain about their chances of securing injunctive relief in the near future.

Overall, the legal battle over DOGE’s access to government data and personnel information continues to unfold in courts across the country. Plaintiffs will need to provide concrete evidence of harm to support their claims and challenge Musk’s authority within the federal government.