US court says DOGE can access sensitive data
PHOTO CAPTION: Illustrative photo by Harpal Singh via Unsplash
By Daniel Wiessner
A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday rejected a bid by a group of unions to block the Trump administration government downsizing team known as the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing sensitive data on Americans.
The Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision said the unions were unlikely to prevail on claims that DOGE would violate federal privacy laws by accessing data at the U.S. Department of Education, Treasury Department, and Office of Personnel Management.
The court refused to block DOGE's access to the agencies' computer systems and data such as Social Security numbers and individuals' citizenship status pending the outcome of the case.
The decision reverses a temporary injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland, which had been paused by the appeals court in April.
The agencies involved in the case and the unions that sued, which include the American Federation of Teachers and the National Federation of Federal Employees, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
President Donald Trump after taking office in January launched DOGE, then headed by billionaire Elon Musk, to dramatically shrink government bureaucracy and federal spending.
DOGE, which is not a formal government agency, has overseen job and spending cuts at nearly every federal agency and has been the focus of numerous lawsuits. Musk stepped down from DOGE in May after publicly falling out with Trump.
The 4th Circuit on Tuesday said the unions that sued along with a group of military veterans had not shown how they would be injured by DOGE accessing agencies' computer systems. They also probably lacked legal standing to sue because that access is not a "final agency action" that can form the basis of a lawsuit, the court said.
A dissenting judge said it was prudent to temporarily block access to the data while the case plays out, and that the standard his colleagues had imposed on the plaintiffs was too high.
(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New YorkEditing by Tomasz Janowski // REUTERS)
