Judge rules DOGE can access personal data despite invasion of privacy claims

(CN) — A federal judge denied a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, from accessing personal information held by the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

U.S. District Judge John Bates wrote in a 28-page opinion that the plaintiffs, a coalition of unions and nonprofits, have not proven that access to members’ medical or financial records by DOGE employees would cause irreparable harm.

Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, found that the plaintiffs’ complaint fell short of the high bar set for litigants seeking a preliminary injunction. While DOGE’s access to the information presents a possible invasion of privacy, the judge wrote, the unions and nonprofits offer no evidence that the information is likely to be misused or leaked.

“This conclusion does not mean the harm the members face is insubstantial or that the court harbors no concerns that DOGE affiliates have their hands on some of the most personal information individuals entrust to the government,” Bates writes. “To the contrary, the court’s concerns are as grave as ever, and it stands ready to remedy plaintiffs’ harm should they ultimately succeed on the merits.”

The AFL-CIO, as well as other unions and nonprofits, sued the department in February on accusations its members wrongfully gained access to sensitive information held by several government departments. The plaintiffs argue the records, which include whistleblower complaints and personal medical data, could be used to retaliate against federal workers or inadvertently released.

The plaintiffs point out that at least some of the information, including trade secrets and investigatory records, could be used by DOGE’s former head, Elon Musk, to further his own business interests.

Michael Gerardi, a Justice Department attorney, argued at a prior hearing that DOGE qualified as a government agency under the 1932 Economy Act, which would authorize it to “detail” or send agents to work temporarily at other agencies. Under that definition, there is no harm from DOGE agents, temporarily employed by the Labor Department, gaining access to worker data information so long as they don’t disclose it to a third party.

Aman George, an attorney for Democracy Forward representing the plaintiffs, told Bates that DOGE was an advisory board within the White House. As such, its members did not have the right to access swaths of government data, cancel government contracts or terminate agency employees. Even if it did have the authority, its members were required to comply with Privacy Act requirements when handling information.

DOGE has courted controversy since its establishment by President Donald Trump in January, facilitating mass layoffs and dismantling government agencies amid pitched legal battles over its authority.

Even after Musk’s tempestuous exit from the president’s inner circle in June, DOGE continues to slash its way through the federal government.

On Friday, The Washington Post reported DOGE has sent staff to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives to revise or eliminate nearly 50 rules and gun restrictions by July 4.

Earlier this week, Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old operative for DOGE nicknamed “Big Balls,” was named a special government employee at the Social Security Administration. An agency spokesman told The New York Times that Coristine would focus on improving the agency’s website and advancing the mission of “delivering more efficient service to the American people.”

Follow @SteveGarrisonPC