jurist.org

US judge declines to block Musk-led DOGE team from Treasury data access due to lack of immediate harm

A US federal judge declined Friday to block employees of the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) from accessing sensitive US Treasury data, finding that retiree and union plaintiffs failed to show an imminent risk of irreparable harm.

US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm because although mistakes in setting up DOGE access at Treasury were “understandable and no doubt widely shared,” the unions had not proven that sensitive information was likely to be disseminated outside the federal government.

In her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly emphasized two key points. First, she affirmed the unions’ legal standing to sue on behalf of their members. The unauthorized disclosure of financial information has a “close relationship” to well-established privacy harms recognized in American law. That means the case itself can move forward.

However, the judge refused to keep the Treasury under a temporary injunction that restricted DOGE’s access to the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS) data. Citing D.C. Circuit standards that require a “certain and great” threat of irreparable injury, Judge Kollar-Kotelly concluded that the unions’ concerns about a possible future data breach or misuse of member data fell short. While there was evidence of onboarding errors—one DOGE contractor received “read/write” access when only “read” rights were intended—the judge saw no proof that actual breaches had occurred or were imminent. “There is no direct evidence that any of these mistakes resulted in improper disclosure outside of the federal government or made such disclosure more likely in the future,” she wrote.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly also noted in Friday’s ruling that the D.C. court’s analysis stands in contrast to a federal ruling in the Southern District of New York. On February 21, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas there granted a preliminary injunction restraining Treasury from giving DOGE staffers full access to BFS payment systems, citing a less exacting standard for “irreparable harm” in the Second Circuit. New York and a coalition of Democratic-led states had argued that the risk of widespread disclosure of personal data was both grave and urgent.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Inauguration Day renaming the US Digital Service as the “US DOGE Service” and directing the new unit to “moderniz[e] Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” The BFS, which processes over 80 percent of the government’s payments, took steps to cooperate with DOGE by granting its team members access to the BFS’s payment processing systems.

Union leaders, however, argued that DOGE staffers, including a software CEO hired as a Special Government Employee, were given sweeping authority to view personal financial records. They alleged that the rushed onboarding process violated both the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code’s strict disclosure limits on personal tax return information.

Treasury officials have acknowledged some procedural slip-ups, one DOGE employee was briefly granted the ability to edit or alter payment data and BFS did not finalize appointment paperwork on time, but said there had been no improper sharing of sensitive data with outside individuals. They also pledged that the BFS would keep watch over any DOGE-related data access.

That injunction remains in effect and strictly bars DOGE staffers at the Treasury from handling large swaths of payment system data. In her opinion, Judge Vargas left open the possibility of revisiting the order if the federal government demonstrates that proper security measures, training, and vetting are now in place.

While Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling on Friday means DOGE can continue limited access to BFS data in the nation’s capital, she emphasized that the Treasury must live up to its assurances that DOGE will handle sensitive data properly. The retirees and unions, meanwhile, retain the right to return to court if fresh evidence shows a heightened threat that private information could be compromised.

Read full news in source page