Judge Denies Blue State AGs’ Bid to Restrict Musk and DOGE’s Access to Federal Agencies

A federal judge has dismissed a request from 14 state attorneys general aimed at preventing billionaire Elon Musk and his agents from accessing sensitive federal data or removing agency personnel resistant to such actions. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan stated that the potential harms cited by the states were speculative and not sufficient to warrant a temporary injunction.

Judge Chutkan highlighted the uncertainty surrounding the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its operations, acknowledging the confusion experienced by various state agencies and residents. However, she emphasized that the mere possibility of irreparable harm was not enough to justify the drastic measures the plaintiff states sought.

New Mexico spearheaded the lawsuit, which was filed in the District of Columbia. Other states involved in the suit include Arizona, Michigan, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The states argue that Musk operates with virtually unchecked authority within the executive branch, claiming he can make significant decisions regarding expenditures, contracts, and regulations.

The attorneys general further contend that Musk and DOGE have improperly accessed sensitive federal information systems and infrastructure. They allege that this access has enabled Musk to carry out mass employee terminations and cancel contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Chutkan pointed out that, while the defendants have acknowledged there is no legal basis for Musk or DOGE to order personnel actions at federal agencies, they have not denied engaging in such practices. Judge Chutkan also referenced a declaration from Joshua Fisher, the Director of the Office of Administration within the Executive Office of the President, which stated that Musk does not officially lead DOGE and serves merely as an advisor to the President.

Fisher’s declaration did not specify who actually oversees the non-governmental agency. Additionally, Justice Department attorneys confirmed that neither of former President Trump’s executive orders regarding DOGE provided it with authority to dictate personnel actions at federal agencies.

Chutkan noted that Trump’s executive orders implied some degree of authority regarding personnel decisions. In her opinion, she also reminded defense counsel of their obligation to make honest representations to the court.

Musk has publicly engaged with DOGE’s initiatives, frequently discussing them on social media and even appearing at the White House. In their legal complaint, the state attorneys general initially sought a broad injunction to restrict Musk’s actions related to the executive branch and declare his previous actions unlawful.

After a hearing on the matter, the states refined their request, limiting it to preventing Musk and DOGE from accessing any data systems in key government departments like Education and Health and Human Services, and halting any staff terminations within those agencies.

Chutkan indicated doubts about the feasibility of granting the states’ requests based on the current evidence presented. She noted that the case seemed heavily reliant on media speculation rather than concrete facts, asserting, “The courts can’t act based on media reports.”