Fourth Circuit bows to Supreme Court in DOGE Social Security data fight

RICHMOND, Va. (CN) —A majority of the Fourth Circuit deferred to the Supreme Court Friday in a fight over the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to Social Security data.

The majority ruled that the Supreme Court’s unexplained decision to stay a preliminary injunction barring DOGE’s access binds them to vacate the injunction until further proceedings.

A federal judge blocked DOGE from accessing the systems in March 2025, questioning why officials needed large quantities of sensitive information on Social Security recipients.

Ruling on the side of labor unions and retirees, the Fourth Circuit initially denied the government’s attempt to stay the injunction. It now finds itself bound by the June Supreme Court decision.

Without explaining their reasoning, a majority of justices on the high court said President Donald Trump was likely to succeed in the litigation and would be injured if the justices didn’t intervene.

In an 88-page document published Friday, five different judges on the Fourth Circuit offered their opinions on the case and raised questions about the role of appellate courts.

In the majority opinion written by U.S. Circuit Judge Toby Heytens, a Joe Biden appointee, Heytens argued that unions had established standing based on injuries the government caused by granting a DOGE team unlawful access to personal data.

Nonetheless, Heytens ruled that the unions failed to demonstrate they are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Preliminary injunctions protect plaintiffs from suffering new or additional irreparable harm between the time the preliminary injunction is entered and the case’s final resolution.

Heytens said the injunction isn’t proper because the unions will have access to two forms of corrective relief down the line.

The Privacy Act, under which the unions sued, allows for monetary damages at the time of judgment. The lower court could also grant a permanent injunction ordering DOGE employees to destroy any illegally obtained data.

In a concurring opinion joined by other Republican-appointed judges, U.S. Circuit Judge Julius Richardson made it clear that they were deferring to the Supreme Court.

“This court is an inferior one,” the Donald Trump appointee said. “When the Supreme Court speaks, inferior courts must listen."

“Of course,” she added, “many cases feature novel legal or factual issues that require inferior courts to exercise independent judgment. But in other cases, the Supreme Court makes the answer easy. This is one such case.”

The sentiment was shared by U.S. Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee. He said the Fourth Circuit “cannot come to a different conclusion at this stage without directly contravening the [Supreme Court’s] order.”

“If we heard this case on the merits, we might find ourselves in a different position,” he added.

In a dissent, U.S. Circuit Judges Andrew Wynn, a Barack Obama appointee, and Robert King, a Bill Clinton appointee, lambasted the Supreme Court for failing to provide its reasoning for granting the government’s request to stay the injunction.

“To treat interim orders as binding precedent abandons our long-held jurisprudence of deciding constitutional law through reasoned opinions, not emergency motions made under intense time pressure,” Wynn said. “More profoundly, it would weaken the public’s confidence in the integrity of our judicial system’s commitment to deliberation and transparency.”

Wilkinson disagreed with Wynn and King.

“My brothers King and Wynn have delivered a stern warning to the Supreme Court,” Wilkinson said. “This creeps too near the water’s edge of defiance for my comfort. My colleagues jump too quickly onto the bandwagon of those who condemn each and every use of the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, no matter how justified.”

Richardson similarly aimed at King and Wynn.

“Even when an inferior judge might independently reach a different conclusion, we remain bound by the Supreme Court,” Richardson said. “We are never free to disregard Supreme Court precedent—no matter how vigorously we might disagree."

The ruling comes after a whistleblower claimed on March 10 that an ex-DOGE engineer saved sensitive data from the Social Security Administration on a personal thumb drive. The Social Security Administration also revealed in a notice of corrections that it and other government defendants had provided false information to the lower court.

King argued the revelations, which came to light after the Supreme Court’s ruling, warranted reassessing the merits of the preliminary injunction.

“From the corrected record, we now know that SSA and the other defendants provided patently false information to the district court in the preliminary injunction," King said. Thus, he argued, prior rulings including at the Supreme Court “were rendered on a materially erroneous record.”

“We know that, going forward, we should not accord the defendants any benefit of the doubt or readily trust in anything they say,” he added.

Heytens and the majority voiced their displeasure with the recent allegations but insisted it was beyond the scope of the present appeal.

“The new revelations here were not part of the district court’s preliminary-injunction analysis," they said. “Thus, these new facts should not and cannot become part of our review.”

Attorneys representing the government did not respond to a request for comment.

Data stored by the Social Security Administration includes names, birthdates, driver’s license numbers, addresses, Social Security numbers, employment and wage histories, financial data, marriage certificates, school records, family court records, citizenship and naturalization records and medical records.

The plaintiffs — American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Retired Americans and the American Federation of Teachers — represent a combined 7 million members.

“The appeals court ruling confirms what we have maintained," Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said in a statement. “The Department of Justice’s erroneous statements about this case are ‘alarming.’”

“All Americans have good reason to be concerned about how their personal, private Social Security data was handled,” Fiesta added. “Older Americans are the most vulnerable to scams, and great damage can be done when Social Security numbers, addresses, health and financial information gets into the wrong hands. We are eager for this case to proceed in district court to find out what DOGE did with our data and to hold those responsible for any wrongdoing accountable.”