Legal Summaries DOGE Data Access and Immigration Privacy Litigation

Major Federal Court Cases

National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Case)

**Court**: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

**Judge**: Richard J. Leon

**Filed**: February 9, 2025

**Status**: Active litigation

**Legal Summary**: The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), representing over 1,000 CFPB employees, filed suit against acting CFPB Director Russell Vought alleging violations of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and CFPB regulations (12 C.F.R. Part 1070) (1). The union alleged that CFPB granted DOGE personnel, including Elon Musk and three other individuals, access to employee systems containing personally identifiable information (PII), health records, internal communications, and records of union activity without proper authorization (2).

**Key Legal Issues**:

- Privacy Act violations for unauthorized disclosure of federal employee information

- Whether DOGE personnel qualify as “officers or employees” under Privacy Act exceptions

- Compliance with Consumer Financial Protection Act and Trade Secrets Act requirements (3)

**Relief Sought**: Declaratory and injunctive relief barring further disclosure of employee data to DOGE personnel (4).

**Current Status**: Judge Amy Berman Jackson granted a preliminary injunction on February 14, 2025, blocking additional CFPB layoffs and data access. A March 3 hearing was scheduled for full case review (5).

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. DOGE (FOIA Case)

**Court**: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

**Judge**: Christopher Cooper

**Filed**: February 20, 2025

**Status**: Supreme Court involvement

**Legal Summary**: Government watchdog group CREW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit requesting communications between DOGE administrator Amy Gleason and staff, plus financial disclosures from DOGE personnel (6). The case centers on whether DOGE qualifies as a federal “agency” subject to FOIA requirements.

**Supreme Court Action**: On June 11, 2025, the Supreme Court temporarily paused Judge Cooper’s discovery order requiring DOGE to provide information, sending the dispute to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions for “more skeptical” review (7). The Court’s three liberal justices dissented from the emergency docket ruling (8).

**Legal Significance**: The case tests the boundaries of FOIA applicability to quasi-governmental entities and emergency judicial review standards.

American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent (Education Department Data Access)

**Court**: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit

**Decision Date**: August 12, 2025

**Status**: DOGE access restored

**Legal Summary**: The American Federation of Teachers, along with other unions, challenged DOGE’s access to Education Department’s Student Loan Data System containing records of 43 million Americans (9). A federal district judge in Maryland initially granted a temporary restraining order in February 2025, converted to preliminary injunction in March (10).

**4th Circuit Ruling**: The appeals court vacated the preliminary injunction 2-1, with Judge Julius N. Richardson writing that DOGE employees “would seem hard-pressed to know what needs improvement at their respective agencies before getting a lay of the land” (11). The majority cited the Supreme Court’s June Social Security Administration ruling as precedent (12).

**Dissenting Opinion**: Judge Robert B. King (Clinton appointee) argued that DOGE had been “accorded sudden, unfettered, unprecedented, and apparently unnecessary access to highly sensitive personal information belonging to millions of Americans” (13).

Social Security Administration Access Case

**Court**: U.S. Supreme Court (Emergency Docket)

**Decision Date**: June 11, 2025

**Status**: DOGE access granted

**Legal Summary**: Two labor unions and a grassroots advocacy group challenged SSA’s decision to provide DOGE access to records in federal court in Baltimore, arguing SSA had “abandoned its commitment to maintaining the privacy of personal data” for millions of Americans (14).

**Supreme Court Ruling**: The Court sided with the Trump administration over objections from Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, clearing the way for DOGE access to Social Security records (15). The ruling came on the “shadow docket” without full briefing or oral argument.

Multistate Litigation

14-State Coalition v. Musk and DOGE (Constitutional Challenge)

**Court**: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

**Judge**: Tanya Chutkan

**Filed**: February 2025

**Status**: Motion to dismiss denied May 27, 2025

**Legal Summary**: Attorneys general from 14 states, led by New Mexico and Oregon, challenged Elon Musk’s authority under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, arguing Trump granted Musk “unfettered legal authority” without Senate confirmation (16).

**Judge Chutkan’s Ruling**: The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss on May 27, 2025, finding that plaintiffs “plausibly allege that Musk makes decisions about ‘federal expenditures, contracts, government property, and the very existence of federal agencies’” (17). However, the court dismissed claims against Trump personally, stating the court would not intervene in “the execution of his official responsibilities” (18).

**Legal Significance**: The ruling establishes that DOGE’s authority may exceed constitutional limits requiring Senate confirmation for officers exercising significant executive power.

New York Attorney General v. Treasury Department (Data Access)

**Court**: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

**Judge**: Jeannette Vargas

**Filed**: February 2025

**Status**: Preliminary injunction granted

**Legal Summary**: Attorney General Letitia James, joined by 18 other state attorneys general, sued to block DOGE access to Treasury’s central payment system (19). The lawsuit alleged the Trump administration “illegally provided Elon Musk and DOGE unauthorized access” to Americans’ sensitive personal information (20).

**Court Orders**:

- **February 8**: Temporary restraining order granted blocking DOGE access

- **February 21**: Preliminary injunction granted barring access while litigation proceeds

- Court ordered immediate destruction of any records already obtained (21)

Immigration Data Privacy Litigation

Medicaid Data Sharing Cases

**Primary Case**: Coalition of State Attorneys General v. HHS and DHS

**Court**: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

**Status**: Preliminary injunction granted August 12, 2025

**Legal Summary**: Multiple state attorneys general, led by Maryland’s Anthony Brown, challenged the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) access to Medicaid data for immigration enforcement (22).

**Key Legal Claims**:

- Violations of Administrative Procedure Act (arbitrary and capricious agency action)

- Breach of Medicaid Act confidentiality requirements

- Lack of proper notice-and-comment rulemaking (23)

**Court Ruling**: U.S. District Judge granted preliminary injunction on August 12, 2025, blocking:

- DHS use of Medicaid data from plaintiff states for immigration enforcement

- HHS sharing of additional Medicaid data with DHS for enforcement purposes (24)

**Injunction Duration**: Remains in effect until 14 days after HHS/DHS complete reasoned decision-making process complying with APA, or until litigation concludes (25).

IRS-ICE Data Sharing Agreement

**Legal Context**: In April 2025, the IRS reached a data-sharing agreement with DHS providing ICE access to tax information on up to 7 million suspected undocumented immigrants (26). This agreement prompted multiple legal challenges focused on:

- Violations of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (tax return confidentiality)

- Fourth Amendment privacy protections

- Administrative Procedure Act compliance requirements (27)

**Impact Assessment**: Legal experts noted this represents “unprecedented access” to administrative data for immigration enforcement, with potential chilling effects on tax compliance in immigrant communities (28).

Systemic Constitutional Issues

Appointments Clause Violations

Multiple lawsuits raise constitutional questions about DOGE personnel exercising “significant authority” without Senate confirmation. Legal scholars note that under Supreme Court precedent in *Buckley v. Valeo* and *Lucia v. SEC*, individuals exercising substantial executive authority must be appointed through constitutionally prescribed methods (29).

Privacy Act Systematic Violations

A pattern of Privacy Act violations has emerged across multiple agencies, with 14 separate lawsuits alleging violations of six federal privacy protections across eight federal agencies (30). The Center for Democracy & Technology documented these violations as creating “unprecedented risks to Americans’ private personal and financial information” (31).

Due Process Concerns

Federal employees affected by DOGE actions have raised substantive and procedural due process challenges, arguing that mass layoffs and data access violations occurred without proper notice or opportunity to be heard, violating Fifth Amendment protections (32).

Pending Litigation Outlook

**Supreme Court Consideration**: The Court’s June 2025 rulings suggest a favorable disposition toward executive branch arguments on the emergency docket, but full merits review may yield different outcomes (33).

**Circuit Court Divergence**: The 4th Circuit’s pro-DOGE ruling contrasts with more restrictive approaches in other circuits, potentially creating grounds for Supreme Court review on the merits (34).

**Legislative Response**: Congressional Democrats have indicated intent to pursue legislative remedies if courts do not provide adequate relief, including potential amendments to the Privacy Act and FOIA to close perceived loopholes (35).

The volume and scope of litigation reflects unprecedented legal challenges to executive branch data access practices, with fundamental questions about separation of powers, individual privacy rights, and federal-state relations remaining unresolved as of August 2025.

References

1. Clearinghouse. Case: National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought. July 5, 2025. Available from: https://clearinghouse.net/case/46088/

2. NTEU. NTEU Alleges Privacy Act Violations at CFPB. February 10, 2025. Available from: https://www.nteu.org/media-center/news-releases/2025/02/10/cfpbprivacylawsuit

3. Clearinghouse. Op cit.

4. Ibid.

5. NPR. Federal judge blocks CFPB from laying off more employees. February 15, 2025. Available from: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/nx-s1-5297870/cfpb-doge-trump-musk-federal-workforce

6. SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court sides with Trump in two DOGE suits. June 11, 2025. Available from: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-in-two-doge-suits/

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Education Week. Federal Appeals Court Ruling Allows DOGE Access to Education Department Data. August 12, 2025. Available from: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/federal-appeals-court-ruling-allows-doge-access-to-education-department-data/2025/08

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. SCOTUSblog. Op cit.

15. Ibid.

16. Reuters. US judge allows states’ lawsuit against DOGE to proceed. May 28, 2025. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-allows-states-lawsuit-against-doge-proceed-2025-05-27/

17. NPR. Judge rules suit challenging DOGE and Elon Musk’s power over government can continue. May 28, 2025. Available from: https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/nx-s1-5414191/musk-lawsuit-doge-trump-spending-bill

18. Reuters. Op cit.

19. New York Attorney General. Attorney General James Stops Elon Musk and DOGE from Accessing Americans’ Private Information. February 21, 2025. Available from: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/attorney-general-james-stops-elon-musk-and-doge-accessing-americans-private

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Maryland Attorney General. Attorney General Brown Sues Trump Administration for Illegally Sharing Personal Health Data with DHS. July 1, 2025. Available from: https://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/press/2025/070125c.pdf

23. Minnesota Attorney General. Attorney General Ellison secures preliminary injunction blocking Minnesota’s Medicaid data from being used unlawfully for immigration enforcement purposes. August 13, 2025. Available from: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2025/08/13\_ICE\_HealthData.asp

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Center for Democracy & Technology. Immigration, DOGE, and Data Privacy. May 9, 2025. Available from: https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/CDT-and-LCCHR-May-9-2025-Immigration-DOGE-and-Data-Privacy-Explainer.pdf

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. Supreme Court of the United States. Brief of American Oversight as Amicus Curiae. May 23, 2025. Available from: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1122/359535/20250523112640289\_2025.05.23%20-%2024A1122%20Amicus%20Brief%20.pdf

30. Center for Democracy & Technology. Op cit.

31. IAPP. US Senate Intel members raise concern about DOGE privacy risks. February 6, 2025. Available from: https://iapp.org/news/a/us-senate-intel-members-raise-concern-about-doge-privacy-risks

32. NBC News. Union sues Russell Vought over DOGE access to CFPB and Treasury Department. February 10, 2025. Available from: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/union-sues-russell-vought-doge-access-cfpb-treasury-department-rcna191419

33. SCOTUSblog. Op cit.

34. Education Week. Op cit.

35. GovExec. Top oversight Dem files resolution to demand answers from DOGE on AI use. April 3, 2025. Available from: https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/04/top-oversight-dem-files-resolution-demand-answers-doge-ai-use/404268/