Federal Judge Rejects Dems’ Effort To Halt DOGE’s Staffing Purges, Access To Sensitive Data

A federal judge denied a request Tuesday to block Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from firing employees or accessing sensitive data at multiple federal agencies.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan declined the request from 14 Democratic state attorneys general to issue a temporary restraining order that would have blocked DOGE staffers from purging employees or accessing sensitive data systems at the departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Commerce, Energy, and Transportation as well as the Office of Personnel Management. The decision is a blow to Democratic officials who want to stop President Donald Trump’s efforts to trim the federal workforce.

“In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority,” Chutkan wrote in her ruling. “Accordingly, it cannot issue a TRO (temporary restraining order), especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs. The current record does not meet that standard.”

The attorneys general sued Musk last Thursday, arguing his involvement in the federal government violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which requires Senate confirmation for presidential appointments. Chutkan said that the plaintiffs “raise a colorable Appointments Clause claim,” but her opinion “begins and ends with irreparable harm.”

New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez filed the lawsuit, saying Musk’s role in the Trump administration is a “threat to democracy” and an “unlawful delegation of executive power.”

The judge said the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, defined as an injury “both certain and great, actual and not theoretical, beyond remediation, and of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief.” She added that the “possibility of irreparable harm” was legally insufficient.

“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.’”

The ruling follows Monday’s hearing, where Chutkan initially seemed inclined to deny the Democratic attorneys general’s suit, reportedly saying “It’s a prophylactic TRO, and that’s not allowed.”

Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington joined Torrez in the suit.

The lawsuit is among several legal challenges against DOGE in federal courts nationwide that aim to limit or block the task force’s authority to fire employees or access sensitive data.

Separately, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Moss rejected a motion Monday to block DOGE’s access to student borrower data at the U.S. Department of Education.