The U.S. Department of Justice has rejected a legal challenge to Elon Musk’s role in the Trump administration, particularly his position in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), by dismissing the challenge as misguided. The case, filed by New Mexico and 13 other states in February, argues that Musk’s authority within DOGE violates the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The states claim that Musk wields excessive power, akin to an appointed officer, without Senate confirmation.
The Appointments Clause mandates that principal officers of the U.S. government be appointed with Senate approval, but allows exceptions for inferior officers, provided Congress has designated the president as the appointing authority. The lawsuit asserts that Musk’s authority is not limited and that he holds too much influence to be considered an inferior officer. The plaintiffs argue that Musk’s de facto power exceeds the bounds of his formal role, violating constitutional requirements.
In response, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Appointments Clause only applies to individuals who hold a formal office within the government. Since Musk does not occupy a formal governmental office, the government contends that the Clause is irrelevant in this case. The DOJ’s brief stresses that the Clause is concerned with the formal exercise of government power, ensuring that individuals in government positions with legal authority are properly nominated and confirmed. Since Musk does not hold an official office, the motion argues that there is no need for Senate approval.
The Trump administration asserts that the plaintiffs misunderstand the Appointments Clause by conflating influence and authority. The DOJ explains that the Clause is not concerned with how much power an individual exercises but rather with the legal authority granted by the office they hold. In the motion to dismiss, the DOJ compares Musk’s role to influential figures in past administrations, such as Hillary Clinton, Karl Rove, and John Podesta, who, despite wielding substantial influence, did not hold formal governmental offices. The argument is that these individuals’ soft power did not trigger Appointments Clause concerns, as they did not possess legal authority granted through formal offices.
The government also challenges the states’ claim that they have standing to sue, arguing that they have not shown any direct or imminent harm resulting from Musk’s role in DOGE. The DOJ contends that the states’ complaints are speculative and concern potential future harms rather than concrete injuries. According to the government, the states’ lawsuit is based on hypothetical consequences and fails to demonstrate any actual violation of constitutional law.
The Trump administration’s legal team further argues that the focus should not be on whether Musk wields influence, but rather on whether he holds a legal office that would trigger the Appointments Clause. Since Musk does not hold a formal office with legal power, the DOJ maintains that the constitutional issue raised by the plaintiffs is not valid.
In summary, the government rejects the lawsuit’s claims by asserting that the Appointments Clause applies only to formal offices with legal authority, which Musk does not hold. The motion to dismiss urges the court to disregard the plaintiffs’ arguments based on a misunderstanding of the constitutional requirements and their failure to demonstrate standing to sue.
