In a series of pivotal rulings, the Supreme Court delivered significant victories to the Trump administration on Friday concerning cases linked to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Among these was an authorization for DOGE to access the Social Security Administration’s personal data repository, which comprises information on millions of Americans.
The Supreme Court’s conservative justices aligned with the administration, marking the first set of appeals involving DOGE. However, the liberal justices dissented. These outcomes arrive amidst escalating tensions between President Trump and the billionaire Elon Musk, stemming from Musk’s exit from the White House. This rift has included Musk’s calls for the president’s impeachment and threats to sever government contracts. Despite Musk’s departure, both parties have previously committed to continuing DOGE’s initiatives.
In one disputed case, the high court reversed a Maryland judge’s decision that restricted DOGE’s access to Social Security information, citing federal privacy laws. The court stated that the Social Security Administration (SSA) shall allow DOGE team members access to necessary agency records. Notably, conservative lower-court judges observed no evidence of DOGE mishandling personal data thus far.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced concerns, asserting that the court’s decision poses significant privacy risks by enabling DOGE access without demonstrating compliance with privacy safeguards. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed with Jackson, each voicing objections to the court’s ruling.
The Trump administration defended its need for access, arguing it essential for identifying governmental waste, particularly within the Social Security system—a department Musk has vocally criticized as prone to fraud and inefficiency.
Contrarily, U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander described DOGE’s investigation into Social Security as akin to “fishing,” reliant on scant evidence of malpractice, potentially jeopardizing individuals’ private information. She permitted access only to some anonymous data for trained staff and required justification for wider access.
Despite restrictions, the administration claims these limitations impede DOGE’s operational efficiency. Solicitor General D. John Sauer further criticized the judicial constraints as unnecessary micromanaging of executive functions.
This legal dispute, initiated by labor unions and retirees backed by Democracy Forward, is part of over two dozen lawsuits challenging DOGE’s operations—including significant agency budget reductions and resulting layoffs.
Dismayed, plaintiffs deemed the Supreme Court’s ruling a troubling setback for democracy, expecting negative repercussions for millions nationwide. They contended that Musk’s influence lingers, despite his departure from governmental involvement.
The White House, in contrast, celebrated the ruling. Spokesperson Liz Huston commended the decision as an affirmation of lawful governance and a stride towards modernizing government operations by eradicating inefficiency.
The court system continues to serve as a battleground for resistance against Trump’s conservatively-driven initiatives, as numerous legal challenges address a broad spectrum of administration policies.
In an additional DOGE-related decree, the justices sustained a halt on mandates necessitating the public release of information about the department’s inner workings, linked to a lawsuit from a government watchdog group.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington insists DOGE qualifies as a federal entity and should conform to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Yet, the Trump administration contends DOGE operates solely as a presidential advisory unit for fiscal accountability, warranting exemption from FOIA documentation requisites.
The Supreme Court refrained from resolving this debate but criticized U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper for overreaching in demanding the release of pertinent documents to CREW.