WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Tuesday refused to block Elon Musk’s access to sensitive records at several federal departments after another judge limited the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to the Treasury Department.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan held hearings Friday and Monday on the request from 14 states, which argued that Musk was exercising unchecked power to gain access to sensitive information, terminate personnel and end contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
But Chutkan ruled that the states hadn’t shown they would suffer “imminent, irreparable harm” unless she blocked DOGE.
“The court is aware that DOGE’s unpredictable actions have resulted in considerable uncertainty and confusion for Plaintiffs and many of their agencies and residents,” Chutkan wrote. “But the ‘possibility’ that Defendants may take actions that irreparably harm Plaintiffs ‘is not enough.
In the case led by New Mexico, 14 states argued that Musk’s “unchecked power” over federal agencies violates the Appointments Clause in the U.S. Constitution. They said that Musk took over a newly established agency without following the protocol outlined in founding documents.
In the case led by New Mexico, 14 states argued that Musk’s “unchecked power” over federal agencies violates the Appointments Clause in the U.S. Constitution. They said that Musk took over a newly established agency without following the protocol outlined in founding documents.
The Appointments Clause requires Congress to establish an office before the president can fill it and states that the Senate must confirm a nominee to an office created by law.
A New Mexico official said if the Labor Department’s sensitive data was compromised, it could leave the state vulnerable to embezzlement, cyber theft and ransom attacks. A Washington state official said if DOGE canceled federal-state contracts it would hurt the state’s ability to meet its legal commitments to residents. A Connecticut official said DOGE could potentially impact the state’s Department of Social Services funding.
“The sweeping authority now vested in a single unelected and unconfirmed individual is antithetical to the nation’s entire constitutional structure,” the states argued.