A federal appeals court has decided to maintain existing limitations on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), overseen by Elon Musk, regarding access to Social Security systems containing personal data of millions of Americans. The decision was reached by the entire bench of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with a 9-6 vote to uphold the previous ruling made by U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander while DOGE’s appeal is ongoing. The appellate court’s ruling was announced on Wednesday.
Earlier this month, Judge Hollander issued a preliminary injunction following a lawsuit initiated by labor unions and retirees. The plaintiffs argued that DOGE’s recent actions infringe on privacy laws and pose significant information security threats. In her decision, Hollander permitted DOGE staff to access information that has been redacted or made anonymous, but only on the condition that they undergo proper training and complete background checks. She also mandated that DOGE and its staff delete any non-anonymized Social Security data already obtained and prohibited them from altering any computer code used by the Social Security Administration.
DOGE’s legal representatives contended that the process of anonymizing the data would present an excessive burden and could impede the Trump administration’s initiatives aimed at identifying Social Security fraud. Appellate Judge Robert B. King, writing for the majority, emphasized that DOGE seeks “immediate and unrestricted access” to a wide range of Social Security records. This includes sensitive personal data such as family court and school records, medical and mental health records of individuals receiving disability benefits, as well as financial information.
Judge King underscored that the American populace has historically entrusted the Social Security Administration (SSA) with this sensitive information, expecting it to be rigorously safeguarded. Conversely, Appellate Judge Julius Richardson, who opposed the majority ruling, suggested that the case should have been assessed by a smaller group of three judges rather than the full panel. Richardson also argued that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that DOGE has accessed their personal information, but are rather preoccupied with the potential for “abstract harm.”