A federal judge in Washington, D.C., expressed skepticism about the request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would bar Elon Musk and DOGE from accessing federal data and firing government employees. The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of 14 states, claims that the Trump administration’s decision to grant Musk and DOGE broad authority violates the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. This clause dictates that Congress must create offices before the President can appoint officials, and it requires Senate confirmation for nominees to these offices.
The states allege that the grant of power to Musk and his associates represents a delegation of unchecked authority that circumvents the constitutional framework. They argue that the move allows Musk to wield extraordinary influence without proper legal authority or oversight. Specifically, they assert that the restructuring of a government office by Musk and DOGE is an abuse of presidential power, fundamentally altering the separation of powers established in the Constitution. They accuse Musk of transforming a minor role managing government websites into a position capable of making far-reaching decisions about government policy and operations.
At a hearing, U.S. District Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan questioned the plaintiffs’ claims and expressed doubts about whether the states could demonstrate imminent harm to justify the extraordinary relief they were seeking. She emphasized that the courts cannot issue orders based solely on news reports, and the plaintiffs were unable to provide concrete evidence to support their argument for immediate intervention. During the hearing, Chutkan characterized the TRO request as a “prophylactic” measure, which she explained is not permitted without evidence of specific, impending harm.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Anjana Samant, referenced news reports about DOGE’s activities and potential actions but was quickly interrupted by Chutkan, who insisted that the courts cannot act based on media coverage. Samant also argued that the states would suffer irreparable harm due to the potential loss of federal funding, particularly in areas like education. However, Chutkan questioned how the harm could be deemed irreparable if the court could later order the government to restore funding or contracts if the plaintiffs prevailed in the case.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department, represented by attorney Joshua Gardner, also faced questions from the judge. Chutkan asked whether the DOJ could confirm the plaintiffs’ claims that thousands of federal employees had been fired. Gardner admitted that he could not confirm this, which Chutkan found concerning, given the significance of such terminations. When pressed, he argued that this issue was not directly relevant to the case at hand, but Chutkan disagreed, considering it pertinent to the larger questions about governmental authority and oversight.
The government also took issue with the plaintiffs’ characterization of Musk’s role. Gardner asserted that Musk had no formal or actual authority within the government, questioning whether the plaintiffs could provide any evidence to the contrary. Chutkan appeared unconvinced by this defense, suggesting that the situation might involve a far broader concentration of power than the government was willing to acknowledge.
As the hearing concluded, Chutkan asked Samant whether there was any precedent for granting a TRO based on an Appointments Clause violation. Samant acknowledged that the situation was unique, but she emphasized that the extraordinary nature of the case warranted urgent action. Despite her skepticism about issuing immediate relief, Chutkan seemed open to the plaintiffs’ broader arguments about the potential for abuse of power, particularly regarding Musk’s ability to influence government operations without appropriate checks and balances.
Chutkan indicated that she would issue an order on the matter within the next 24 hours. While the states’ request for an immediate TRO appeared unlikely to succeed, the case will continue to unfold, with the potential for significant legal and political implications surrounding the delegation of government powers to private individuals and entities.
