A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama ruled that 14 Democratic state attorneys general had failed to prove that granting Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to federal data or firing federal employees had caused "imminent harm."
On February 12, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan refused to impose an immediate temporary restraining order that would have imposed wide-ranging restrictions on DOGE's investigations into government corruption.
Chutkan, who is not a known ally of President Donald Trump, was the same judge who previously oversaw the now-dismissed Jan. 6 criminal proceedings against him.
"Plaintiffs 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," wrote Chutkan in her ruling.
"In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority. Accordingly, it cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs. The current record does not meet that standard," she continued.
However, Chutkan suggested in a footnote that the Justice Department may have stretched the truth a bit regarding DOGE’s authority over federal personnel issues.
“Defense counsel is reminded of their duty to make truthful representations to the court,” she wrote.
A coalition of 14 Democrat states, led by New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, filed a lawsuit last week, accusing Musk's appointment to run DOGE unconstitutional, as he was not confirmed by the Senate. State attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington joined Torrez.
"There is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual," complained Torrez.
The Democrat plaintiffs argued that Musk's appointment by President Trump to oversee DOGE as a private citizen represented an "unlawful delegation of executive power." They claimed that his presence in DOGE caused "widespread disruption" for government employees working for various federal departments and government contractors.
Despite her initial sympathy towards the plaintiffs, Chulkan noted that their initial arguments failed to adequately meet the high legal standard of "imminent harm" required for a temporary restraining order.
"The things I’m hearing are troubling indeed, but I have to have a record and findings of fact before I issue something," Chutkan said the day before her ruling.
Trump gave Musk a mandate to lead DOGE as a temporary agency that would reorganize the federal government by streamlining operations, terminating employees who have no useful roles, and slashing trillions in wasteful spending, but this quickly drew legal challenges from the Washington establishment.
DOGE has targeted critical data at the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Commerce.
The Justice Department has made the argument that DOGE staffers were "detailed" U.S. government employees who were entitled to access to government data under provisions of the Economy Act.
A lawyer with the DOJ, Harry Graver, explained to Chutkan during arguments that there are “very clear paper trails” for all the actions DOGE has taken and that there’s “not a single instance” of Musk misusing his presidential appointment as a non-federal employee to interfere with government operations.
“Nowhere have my friends offered a shroud to show that Elon Musk has any formal or actual authority to make any government decision,” Graver said.
“I think you stretch too far,” Chutkan responded, adding, “I disagree with you there.”
After the hearing, the DOJ released an official declaration clarifying that Musk was not a DOGE employee but was instead a senior adviser to President Trump.
Chutkan's decision is the latest blow to Democrat attempts to temporarily restrict DOGE's access to data on government employees in seven federal agencies. The lawsuit is one out of a dozen Democrat-led legal challenges filed across the country, in an attempt to block or restrict DOGE's operations.
Last Friday, U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, also rejected a separate request to prevent Musk's team from accessing records of three government agencies, ruling that the plaintiffs "have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency."
Another Obama appointee, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, ruled on Monday that he would not block DOGE from reviewing student borrowing data at the Department of Education.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member