Judge Denies Request To Temporarily Block DOGE’s Mass Firings, Access to Data
A judge on Tuesday, February 19, 2025, declined to immediately block Elon Musk’s government efficiency department from directly firing federal workers or accessing databases. According to the the judge, the case raises questions about Musk’s apparent unchecked authority as a top deputy to President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — who previously oversaw President Donald Trump‘s criminal election interference case denied – for now – a request by more than a dozen states for a judicial order barring the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, from accessing computer systems at seven federal agencies or purging government workers while litigation plays out.`
He also said the states didn’t show that immediate irreparable harm would result, noting that the court cannot act based on media reports.
The world’s wealthiest person, Elon Musk, spearheads DOGE, which has taken the lead role in carrying out the Republican president’s plans for reducing and overhauling the federal government.
In her decision, Chutkan wrote that the states “legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight.” But the judge said the states had not shown why they were entitled to an immediate restraining order.
Fourteen state attorneys general were seeking a restraining order that would temporarily block Elon and DOGE from firing employees or accessing data from the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Commerce, Labor, Energy, Transportation and Office of Personnel Management as part of Trump’s campaign promise to slash the federal government.
While Tuesday’s ruling handed the administration a short-term win, Judge Chutkan appeared sympathetic to the states’ argument that Musk’s role is potentially unconstitutional.
Chutkan stated that if the allegations about the breadth of Musk’s power prove true, his actions are “precisely the ‘Executive abuses’ that the Appointments Clause seeks to prevent.”
