Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, access to sensitive information held by the Social Security Administration (SSA). This decision allows DOGE to proceed with its work while legal challenges continue. The ruling came in an unsigned order that temporarily lifted an injunction from a federal district court in Maryland, which had restricted DOGE's access to personal data of millions of Americans.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision. The Supreme Court stated, "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."

This emergency appeal marked the first time the Supreme Court addressed a case directly involving DOGE, an initiative previously led by Elon Musk aimed at reducing the size of the federal government. DOGE's extensive efforts have led to multiple lawsuits, with plaintiffs claiming that the task force has breached federal privacy laws regarding the collection and use of Americans' information.

The challenge was initiated by two labor unions and an advocacy group, which argued that the SSA unlawfully granted DOGE unrestricted access to its data systems. These systems contain sensitive information, including Social Security numbers, medical records, school records, employment histories, and financial data.

In April, U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that the SSA's decision violated the Privacy Act and federal law governing agency rulemaking. While she allowed DOGE team members access to redacted or anonymized information, it was contingent upon them undergoing training and background checks.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit declined a request from the Trump administration to lift the injunction, prompting the Justice Department to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the injunction was hindering federal employees tasked with modernizing government systems from accessing necessary data. He stated, "The government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs."

Sauer further contended that the district court overstepped its authority, harming "urgent federal priorities" and obstructing the executive branch's functions. He emphasized that employees responsible for modernizing government information systems need access to those systems, stating, "Yet the district court instead viewed agency employees within the SSA DOGE team as the equivalent of intruders who break into hotel rooms."

In contrast, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the SSA's decision to grant DOGE access to its data systems undermines the agency's commitment to data security. They claimed, "SSA granted unprecedented and sweeping access to the most sensitive information held by the government, doing so without acknowledging the sea change in their own practices and policies."

The unions expressed concern that their members face increasing harm as DOGE continues to access sensitive, personally identifiable information. They emphasized that Americans' right to privacy is at stake.

DOGE was established by President Trump on his first day back in the White House. The task force's employees have been deployed across various agencies as part of the administration's plan to downsize the federal government. However, DOGE's attempts to access sensitive data from agencies like the Departments of Treasury and Education have led to legal disputes over compliance with the Privacy Act.

Musk's previous leadership of DOGE, before his departure from government service last week, also faced scrutiny. A federal judge in Maryland ruled in March that Musk and DOGE likely violated the Constitution by unilaterally shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development. The 4th Circuit has paused that decision while considering an appeal from the Trump administration.