Judge’s Ruling Weighs In On DOGE Dispute

Judge with gavel on wooden desk courtroom setting

Judge Tanya Chutkan refuses to block Elon Musk and DOGE from accessing federal data, despite concerns over constitutional authority.

Key Takeaways

Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a request to immediately block Elon Musk and DOGE from accessing government data systems or participating in worker layoffs.
The lawsuit, filed by 14 Democratic states, challenges DOGE’s authority to access sensitive government data.
Judge Chutkan found legitimate questions about Musk’s authority but insufficient evidence of grave legal harm to justify a temporary restraining order.
The ruling is part of a series of Democrat-led legal challenges against DOGE’s operations, with other judges also ruling against attempts to restrict DOGE’s access to government data.
DOGE, led by Musk, was tasked with reorganizing the federal government, streamlining operations, and reducing wasteful spending.

Judge Chutkan’s Ruling on DOGE and Musk

In a recent ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, refused to immediately block Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing federal data systems or participating in worker layoffs. The lawsuit, brought by 14 Democratic state attorneys general, challenged the legal standing of DOGE and questioned the constitutionality of Musk’s involvement due to his lack of Senate confirmation.

Judge Chutkan acknowledged legitimate concerns about Musk’s authority but found insufficient evidence of grave legal harm to justify a temporary restraining order. The ruling underscores the complex legal landscape surrounding DOGE’s operations and Musk’s role in the federal government.

Federal Judge to Decide on DOGE's Powers Within 24 Hours
By Chris Mann:

In a landmark case that could redefine the boundaries of executive power within the U.S. government, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is set to make a crucial ruling within the next 24 hours concerning the…

— Chris & Boudreaux (@FoggyMann) February 18, 2025

Democratic States’ Legal Challenge

The lawsuit, led by New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez and supported by 13 other Democratic states, aimed to bar DOGE from accessing several federal departments, including Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs argued that Musk’s appointment to DOGE was unconstitutional as he was not confirmed by the Senate and represented an unlawful delegation of executive power.

Even Judge Chutkan noted that “DOGE’s unpredictable actions have resulted in considerable uncertainty and confusion.”

Despite these concerns, Judge Chutkan noted that the plaintiffs did not meet the high legal standard of “imminent harm” required for a temporary restraining order. This decision allows DOGE to continue its operations for now, but leaves the door open for further legal scrutiny as the case progresses.

DOGE’s Role and Defense

DOGE, with President Trump’s approval, was established to investigate budgets for waste, fraud, and abuse. The Trump administration claims that layoffs are directed by agency heads, and Musk is not directly managing DOGE’s daily operations. The Justice Department argued that DOGE staffers were entitled to access government data under the Economy Act and clarified that Musk was a senior adviser to President Trump, not a DOGE employee.

Despite the defense’s arguments, Judge Chutkan recognized the states’ concerns about Musk’s “unchecked authority” and lack of Congressional oversight for DOGE. This acknowledgment suggests that while the immediate request for a restraining order was denied, the legal challenges to DOGE’s authority and Musk’s role are far from over.

Broader Legal Landscape

Judge Chutkan’s ruling is part of a series of Democrat-led legal challenges against DOGE’s operations. Other judges in Washington, including John Bates and Randolph Moss, have also declined to block DOGE’s access to agency systems. However, a federal judge in New York has temporarily blocked DOGE’s access to Treasury Department data, highlighting the varied judicial responses to these challenges.

As the legal battles continue, the future of DOGE and Musk’s role in government efficiency efforts remains uncertain. The ongoing litigation underscores the complex constitutional questions surrounding the appointment of private citizens to significant government roles without Senate confirmation. As the case progresses, it will likely continue to draw attention from both supporters and critics of the current administration’s approach to government reorganization and efficiency.