On June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court issued two orders involving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). One grants DOGE immediate access to sensitive Social Security data, overturning a lower court’s injunction that had blocked access due to privacy concerns. The other temporarily halts a lower court’s order requiring DOGE to release internal records to a watchdog group. Both decisions are interim procedural rulings—granting emergency relief—not final judgments on the underlying legal issues. The following case briefs break down the key points necessary to understand each case at this stage. At the end, I include preliminary notes on President Trump’s memo activating the National Guard.

Case 1: Social Security Administration v. AFSCME

This case involves a legal challenge to DOGE’s access to the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) databases, which contain personal information of millions of Americans.

  • Plaintiffs (opposing DOGE’s access): Two labor unions (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT)) and a grassroots advocacy organization (Alliance for Retired Americans (ARA)).
    • Plaintiffs seek to stop the SSA from giving DOGE access to its data. They argue giving DOGE direct, non-anonymized access to that “gold mine of personally identifiable information” violates privacy rights and exposes millions to data-security risks.
  • Defendants (supporting DOGE’s access): The Social Security Administration and the U.S. DOGE Service. The government argues immediate access is essential for DOGE’s goal of improving government efficiency and eliminating fraud, and delaying access harms public interest.

The data the lawsuit seeks to keep out of DOGE’s hands:

According to the plaintiffs’ complaint and other court filings, the bundle of data includes:

  • Social Security numbers and full biographical details: name, date of birth, current/past home addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses.
  • Lifetime earnings histories SSA uses to calculate retirement benefits.
  • Benefit status and payment amounts, i.e. what each person receives (retirement, disability, survivors, SSI) and how much.
  • Disability‐claim files including medical histories, doctors’ reports, and internal agency evaluations of an individual’s health.
  • Bank routing and account numbers used for direct-deposit of monthly checks.

Key Laws Involved:

  • Privacy Act of 1974: Regulates the federal government’s collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information. The plaintiffs argue that DOGE’s access violates this act.
  • Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. The plaintiffs contend that DOGE’s actions did not comply with APA procedures.

Timeline of Key Events:

  • January 20, 2025: President Trump issues Executive Order 14158, creating DOGE within all federal agencies.
    • Directed agency heads across the government to take “all necessary steps” to “ensure USDS has full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.”
  • March 7, 2025: Plaintiffs file their complaint, alleging violations of the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
  • April 17, 2025: A federal district court in Maryland issues an injunction, temporarily blocking DOGE from unfettered access to Social Security records. The court imposes guardrails on DOGE:
    • DOGE can’t simply plug into SSA’s full, live databases, but it could see aggregated, anonymized data sets stripped of personally identifying details—the kind auditors normally start with when hunting for red flags.
    • Required DOGE staff to clear SSA’s standard security protocols for its employees like training and background-checks.
    • Created a carve out where DOGE had to give SSA a written explanation showing a “specific need” for “discrete, particularized, non-anonymized data” if it thought it must see a person’s unmasked file.
  • May 23, 2025: The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (en banc, i.e. full bench) denies the Government’s stay request by a 9–6 vote, leaving the district court’s limits on DOGE’s access in force while the appeal moves forward.
  • June 6, 2025: Siding with the government, the Supreme Court stayed (lifted) the injunction, allowing DOGE immediate access to the records while the case continues.

What was the Supreme Court’s reasoning?

  • In an unsigned, one-page order, arrived at via the emergency–or “shadow” docket, the Supreme Court offered only a bare minimum explanation, citing to the Nken v. Holder decision which sets out the four stay factors:
    • “When considering whether to grant a stay, this Court looks to four factors: ‘(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’… After review, we determine that the application of these factors in this case warrants granting the requested stay. 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.”
  • In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued the government failed to satisfy the Nken test, especially that it would suffer “irreparable harm.” The justices also criticized the majority for abusing the “shadow docket” and signaling preferential treatment for the government. Key quotes:
    • “[T]he ‘urgency’ underlying the Government’s stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.”
    • “Once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.”
    • “With today’s decision, it seems as if the Court has truly lost its moorings. It interferes with the lower courts’ informed and equitable assessment of how the SSA’s data is best accessed during the course of this litigation, and it does so without any showing by the Government that it will actually suffer concrete or irreparable harm from having to comply with the District Court’s order.”

Case 2: U.S. Doge Service v. CREW

This case centers on whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and must disclose internal records to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group.

  • Plaintiff: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
  • Defendants: U.S. Doge Service (USDS) and associated federal officials.

Information CREW wants disclosed:

The group is trying to figure out how DOGE actually works, the extent to which it is shaping policy without the public oversight all federal “agencies” face, and whether its recommendations track the interests of particular political allies or donors. Their FOIA requests target:

  • Internal policy memos sent by DOGE staff to the White House or Cabinet secretaries recommending cuts, mergers, or regulatory rollbacks, as well as e-mails and meeting notes showing who drafted, reviewed, or approved those recommendations.
  • Organizational charts, staffing lists, and budgets that would reveal how many people DOGE employs, who they report to, and how much taxpayer money funds the office.
  • Calendar entries and visitor logs identifying outside lobbyists, contractors, or political advisers who met with DOGE officials.
  • Performance metrics and impact assessments measuring the cost-savings or program changes that resulted from DOGE’s advice.

Timeline of Key Events:

  • February 20, 2025: CREW files the lawsuit alleging FOIA violations for failing to respond to three requests for records.
  • April 15, 2025: A federal district court issues a limited discovery order to determine whether DOGE qualifies as a federal agency subject to FOIA. This order did not compel DOGE to release records under FOIA directly, though the information overlaps with some of the information CREW eventually hopes to get via FOIA like DOGE’s organizational role, authorities, and operational reach. The court mandated that DOGE respond to specific interrogatories, produce certain documents, and allow the deposition of its acting administrator, Amy Gleason.
  • May 14, 2025: The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denies DOGE’s request (“writ of mandamus”) to stop the disclosures the district court ordered.
    • A writ of mandamus is an appellate order used only when a party has no other adequate remedy. It directs a lower court to correct a clear abuse of discretion. Here, the Government asked the D.C. Circuit to issue mandamus to cancel the district court’s broad discovery and bar any further disclosures until DOGE’s FOIA “agency” status is resolved.
  • June 6, 2025: The Supreme Court pauses (stays) the lower court order, sends the case back (“remands”) for further review, and vacates (cancels) the appeals court’s denial of writ of mandamus, emphasizing the need to protect internal executive communications. The Court wrote:
    • “The portions of the District Court’s April 15 discovery order that require the Government to disclose the content of intra–Executive Branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored. Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity’s ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications.”

What’s next?

  • SSA v. AFSCME: The case returns to the Fourth Circuit for a full review of the merits.
  • U.S. Doge Service v. CREW: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will reconsider the scope of permissible discovery in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance.

President Trump’s National Guard memo:

As I was putting the DOGE briefs together on Saturday, President Trump called the National Guard into Federal service in response to protests against ICE raids. We’ll cover this major development this Tuesday on the Insider podcast with Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance. In the meantime, here are a few things to know:

  • In his memo, President Trump ordered at least 2,000 National Guard members into federal (Title 10) service for up to 60 days “to temporarily protect ICE personnel and Federal property” wherever protests are occurring or expected.
  • Section 12406 lets the President “call forth the militia (National Guard)” to (a) repel invasion, (b) suppress actual or threatened rebellion, or (c) execute federal law when it is being obstructed.
  • By putting the Guard under full federal control, the memo makes its members regular Army/Air Force for Posse Comitatus purposes—so, unless the President also invokes a special exception like the Insurrection Act (which he hasn’t), they may only handle protective duties such as guarding buildings, setting perimeters, and providing logistics or intelligence, not arrests, searches, or crowd-dispersal.

We’ll have a lot more analysis on this story, the charges filed against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and the latest from the Supreme Court this week. If you’re not already, consider becoming a paying member to get full access to all our content. Your support keeps us going.

DOGE FOIA ICE National Guard Social Security Supreme Court