WASHINGTON (AP) — On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered two significant wins in a case concerning government efficiency.
The judiciary faced separate challenges regarding transparency in Doge, once headed by billionaire Elon Musk.
Elon Musk shows off his t-shirt that reads “Doge” while walking on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on March 9, 2025 (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
The conservative majority of the court supported the Trump administration in the initial Supreme Court appeal concerning Doge, while the three liberal justices opposed it.
Doge’s win follows shortly after Musk departed from the White House, amid a tumultuous farewell that included threats to terminate government contracts and a call to the president. The future of Doge’s operations remains uncertain without Musk’s leadership, but both individuals have expressed commitments to ongoing efforts.
In one instance, the High Court stayed a Maryland judge’s order limiting the team’s access to Social Security Administration data, citing federal privacy laws.
“Given the current conditions, the SSA has determined that in order for its members to execute their duties, access to the agency records in question is necessary for members of the SSA Doge team,” the court declared in an unsigned order. A conservative lower court judge noted that there was no evidence of mishandling personal information.
The agency holds sensitive information on nearly every individual in the nation, encompassing school records, salary details, and medical data.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson remarked that the court’s ruling poses a “significant privacy risk” for millions of Americans by allowing “unfettered access to Doge” while existing privacy protection measures remain disregarded. Judge Sonia Sotomayor concurred with Jackson, while Justice Elena Kagan expressed her opposition to the administration’s stance.
The Trump administration argues that Doge’s access is crucial for executing its federal mission targeting waste, as Musk has emphasized social security as a suspected area for fraud. Advocates argue that Ponzi scheme measures are essential in decreasing expenditures in the program.
However, Maryland US District Judge Ellen Hollander concluded that Doge’s initiatives concerning Social Security resembled a “fishing expedition” grounded in mere “suspicions” of fraud, stating that unrestricted access to data endangers American personal information.
Her ruling permitted access to anonymized data for trained and vetted staff, with broader access contingent on specified needs.
The Trump administration contended that such restrictions hinder Doge’s functional efficacy.
Attorney General D. John Sauer also asserted that the ruling exemplifies federal judges overstepping their authority and undermining agency operations.
The plaintiff states that this narrow order is urgently required to safeguard personal information.
The Court of Appeals declined to immediately restore Doge’s access, showing a division along ideological lines. A conservative minority judge noted that there was no proof of the team engaging in “targeted snooping” or compromising personal data.
The lawsuit originated from a coalition of trade unions and retirees and is among over 20 legal challenges regarding Doge’s efforts, including severe federal budget reductions and mass lay-offs.
The plaintiff responded to the High Court’s order, declaring, “This is a sad day for our democracy and a frightening moment for millions. Elon Musk may have exited Washington, D.C., but his influence continues to adversely affect millions.”
White House spokesperson Liz Houston commended the ruling, stating, “The Supreme Court’s decision allowing the Trump administration to implement practical measures to modernize efforts against waste, fraud, and abuse in government information systems represents a significant victory for the rule of law.”
The national court system has been under scrutiny due to setbacks to President Donald Trump’s extensive conservative agenda, with hundreds of lawsuits challenging policies from immigration to education to significant reductions in federal employment.
In another Doge-related ruling issued on Friday, the Justice extended the suspension of a mandate demanding the team publicly disclose operational information as part of a lawsuit initiated by a government watchdog group.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argue that Doge, central to Trump’s initiative to revamp the government, should operate as a federal agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Nonetheless, the Trump administration maintains that Doge functions as a presidential advisory entity intended to cut government costs, thereby exempting it from FOIA document requests.
While the judge refrained from ruling on this matter Friday, the conservative majority deemed that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper had overstepped by mandating document release to the team.
___
Associated Press writers Mark Sherman and Chris Megarian contributed to this report.
Source: apnews.com