A federal judge in Washington, D.C., declined to block Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing federal agency data and making employment decisions, but raised serious concerns about the unchecked authority being granted to an unelected individual.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by 14 states challenging the president’s decision to empower Musk and his team at DOGE with sweeping influence over various executive agencies. The lawsuit argued that such authority violated the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause by delegating significant governmental power without congressional approval or oversight. The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent further workforce disruptions and potential data manipulation, arguing that Musk’s actions threatened the constitutional balance of power.
The judge issued a 10-page ruling denying the TRO request, stating that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated they would suffer irreparable harm without immediate court intervention. While acknowledging that DOGE’s actions had created uncertainty and confusion within the affected states, the court determined that uncertainty alone did not meet the legal threshold for emergency relief.
The ruling noted that declarations from the plaintiffs warned of significant financial and programmatic harm if federal funding were cut or contracts eliminated, but the mere possibility of such harm was insufficient to justify immediate court action. The standard for granting a TRO is high, requiring clear evidence that the harm is imminent and irreparable, rather than speculative or potential.
The judge also addressed widespread reports suggesting that DOGE was preparing another round of mass terminations within federal agencies. While acknowledging the potential consequences, she found that media reports alone did not establish the immediate and concrete harm necessary to justify a TRO.
Despite this setback for the plaintiffs, the ruling included pointed criticism of the structure and oversight of DOGE, indicating that the court found their constitutional concerns to be valid. The judge noted that the case raised legitimate questions about whether Musk and DOGE were wielding authority without the proper legal foundation.
The court observed that an unelected individual had been given significant power over federal operations, despite DOGE not being created by Congress or subject to its oversight. The ruling suggested that while immediate intervention was not warranted at this stage, the broader constitutional challenges to DOGE’s authority could have merit as the case proceeded.
Although the administration secured a temporary victory by avoiding immediate restrictions on Musk’s role, the ruling signaled that the legal battle over the constitutionality of DOGE’s structure and authority was far from over. The judge’s concerns indicated that further scrutiny could lead to significant legal obstacles for the administration’s efforts to reshape executive agencies through DOGE’s actions.
The plaintiffs are expected to continue pursuing legal avenues to challenge the legitimacy of DOGE’s authority, and future court rulings could place additional constraints on its operations. The broader constitutional questions surrounding the delegation of power to Musk and his associates are likely to remain a key issue as the case unfolds.
