Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
.-') _ .-') _
( OO ) ) ( OO ) )
.-----. ,--./ ,--,' ,--./ ,--,'
' .--./ | \ | |\ | \ | |\
| |('-. | \| | )| \| | )
/_) |OO )| . |/ | . |/
|| |`-'| | |\ | | |\ |
(_' '--'\ | | \ | | | \ |
`-----' `--' `--' `--' `--'
lite.cnn.com - on gopher - inofficial
ARTICLE VIEW:
Supreme Court restores DOGE’s access to sensitive Social Security
data and says it doesn’t have to turn over documents
By John Fritze, Tierney Sneed and Tami Luhby, CNN
Updated:
9:24 PM EDT, Fri June 6, 2025
Source: CNN
The Supreme Court handed the Department of Government Efficiency a pair
of significant wins on Friday, allowing the entity to access sensitive
Social Security data for millions of Americans while simultaneously
pausing an effort to look into whether it is subject to a key
transparency law.
In the first and perhaps more important decision, a majority of the
court allowed DOGE to review data at the Social Security Administration
in an ostensible effort to rout out fraud and “modernize outdated
systems.” Critics and lower courts suggested DOGE was engaged in a
fishing expedition through highly sensitive data.
“We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed
to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in
question in order for those members to do their work,” the court
wrote in an unsigned order.
The conservative Supreme Court minutes later a lower court’s order
that required DOGE to turn over documents as part of a lawsuit claiming
the entity, like other government agencies, should be subject to
federal records requests. While the Supreme Court left open the
possibility that some of that information could ultimately be provided,
it asked lower courts to “narrow” its scope.
The court’s three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan
and Ketanji Brown Jackson — also dissented from that decision.
Together, the court’s orders marked important wins for DOGE amid a
public feud between President Donald , the tech billionaire who once
led the entity as the key tool the White House was using to shrink and
reshape the federal government.
The decision in the Social Security case will “hand DOGE staffers the
highly sensitive data of millions of Americans,” Jackson wrote in her
dissent. She warned of “grave privacy risks for millions of
Americans.”
The emergency appeal from the Trump administration was the first that
put DOGE front and center before the high court. US Solicitor General
D. John Sauer argued in court filings that the lower court did not have
the power to “micromanage” DOGE’s ability to access data for the
purpose of addressing government waste, fraud and abuse. The
administration’s victory in this dispute will likely have
repercussions for the other cases concerning DOGE’s ability to access
government data systems.
Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly
sensitive data so far, said Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security
and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities.
Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden
administration, pointed to sworn statements in the case that indicate
DOGE representatives accessed data from non-secure locations.
“While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law,
its operatives will have ‘God-level’ access to Social Security
numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and
reproductive health records and much more,” Romig told CNN.
The trial judge in the Social Security case had ruled that the
challengers were likely to succeed on their arguments that the
administration had violated the Privacy Act by giving DOGE the keys to
the closely guarded data systems – which contain Americans’
financial records, medical information and sensitive information
related to children – without clearly articulating why DOGE needed
that access.
The Social Security Administration case stood out for the robust
evidentiary record the trial judge relied on in issuing her preliminary
injunction. Key to findings of US District Judge Ellen Hollander was
that the administration hadn’t showed why DOGE needed sweeping access
to personal information of Americans that was held by agency. She
concluded that the projects the administration said DOGE was working on
could be done largely using anonymized data.
The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals kept Hollander’s preliminary
injunction in place.
Nearly a dozen DOGE affiliates have been installed at the agency,
according to court filings, and a mid-level career official who
facilitated the DOGE team view into the data, over the objections of
Social Security Administration leadership, was put on administrative
leave. The Trump administration that official, Leland Dudek, to acting
commissioner. The Senate confirmed as commissioner in early May.
DOGE’s data access was first put on hold with a temporary restraining
order in March.
The Trump administration has pointed to three specific projects that
justified granting DOGE access to the systems: a project, known as
“Are You Alive?” scrutinizing whether payments are improperly going
to deceased individuals; a scrub of agency data, known as the Death
Data Clean Up Project, to update records of people the government
believes to be deceased; and the Fraud Detention Project, which is
looking at potential fraud in changes people make to their records,
including with wage reporting and direct deposit information.
Bisignano called the ruling a “major victory for American
taxpayers.”
“The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward
modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring
improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries,” he on X.
The suit was filed by a coalition of labor and advocacy groups, which
were represented by Democracy Forward. In response to the decision, the
coalition said it was a “scary day for millions of people” and
warned that the decision would allow the administration to “steal
Americans’ private and personal data.”
What is DOGE?
Though technical, the separate case involving DOGE records has raised
fundamental questions about the power and transparency of an entity
that has slashed agency budgets with unusual speed. A left-leaning
watchdog, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sued to
gain access to documents that would shed light on the entity’s
operation.
Trump’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court requested that the
justices halt a lower court order that would allow CREW to depose DOGE
leadership and review documents to better understand the entity’s
role within the federal government. The Supreme Court granted that
request but said a more limited discovery might be permitted.
“While we’re obviously disappointed that the Supreme Court chose to
revise aspects of our discovery requests,” said Jordan Libowitz, a
CREW spokesperson, “we’re pleased that the court allowed discovery
to proceed, including depositions.”
The underlying question in the case is whether that, like most other
parts of the federal government, is subject to public review. If it is,
that could serve as a check on what DOGE can accomplish both by
allowing the public to see what’s happening behind the scenes, and by
giving legal challengers information they could use in court to
potentially reverse some of its most drastic actions.
The Trump administration, which the president has repeatedly claimed is
the most transparent in history, has aggressively fought the case,
describing DOGE as a “presidential advisory body” within the White
House that is tasked “with providing recommendations” rather than
making decisions. Given those advisory functions, the Department of
Justice argued, DOGE is exempt from FOIA requirements.
US District Judge Casey Cooper, nominated to the bench by President
Barack Obama, had ordered that DOGE turn over documents in the case and
also approved a deposition of DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason. A
federal appeals court in Washington, DC, declined to reverse the
discovery decision. Cooper ruled that DOGE is likely covered by FOIA,
which allows public interest groups and the media to obtain internal
government records detailing agency conduct.
This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.
<- back to index
You are viewing proxied material from codevoid.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.