A federal judge refused Tuesday to immediately block billionaire Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing government data systems or participating in worker layoffs.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan found that there are legitimate questions about Musk’s authority but said there isn’t evidence of the kind of grave legal harm that would justify a temporary restraining order.
The decision came in a lawsuit filed by 14 Democratic states challenging DOGE’s authority to access sensitive government data. The attorneys general argued that Musk is wielding the kind of power that the Constitution says can be held only by those who are elected or confirmed by the Senate.
The Trump administration, for its part, has maintained that layoffs are coming from agency heads, and asserted that despite his public cheering of the effort Musk isn’t directly running DOGE’s day-to-day operations himself.
DOGE has tapped into computer systems across multiple agencies with the blessing of President Trump, digging into budgets and searching for what he calls waste, fraud and abuse, even as a growing number of lawsuits allege DOGE is violating the law.
Chutkan recognized the concerns of the group of states, which include New Mexico and Arizona.
“DOGE’s unpredictable actions have resulted in considerable uncertainty and confusion,” she wrote. Their questions about Musk’s apparent “unchecked authority” and lack of congressional oversight for DOGE are legitimate and they may be able to successfully argue them later.
Still, at this point, it remains unclear exactly how DOGE’s work will affect the states, and judges can issue orders only to block specific, immediate harms, she found.
Chutkan, who was nominated by President Obama, previously oversaw the now-dismissed criminal election interference case against Trump in Washington, D.C.
Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press
A federal judge refused Tuesday to immediately block billionaire Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing government data systems or participating in worker layoffs.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan found that there are legitimate questions about Musk’s authority but said there isn’t evidence of the kind of grave legal harm that would justify a temporary restraining order.
The decision came in a lawsuit filed by 14 Democratic states challenging DOGE’s authority to access sensitive government data. The attorneys general argued that Musk is wielding the kind of power that the Constitution says can be held only by those who are elected or confirmed by the Senate.
The Trump administration, for its part, has maintained that layoffs are coming from agency heads, and asserted that despite his public cheering of the effort Musk isn’t directly running DOGE’s day-to-day operations himself.
DOGE has tapped into computer systems across multiple agencies with the blessing of President Trump, digging into budgets and searching for what he calls waste, fraud and abuse, even as a growing number of lawsuits allege DOGE is violating the law.
Chutkan recognized the concerns of the group of states, which include New Mexico and Arizona.
“DOGE’s unpredictable actions have resulted in considerable uncertainty and confusion,” she wrote. Their questions about Musk’s apparent “unchecked authority” and lack of congressional oversight for DOGE are legitimate and they may be able to successfully argue them later.
Still, at this point, it remains unclear exactly how DOGE’s work will affect the states, and judges can issue orders only to block specific, immediate harms, she found.
Chutkan, who was nominated by President Obama, previously oversaw the now-dismissed criminal election interference case against Trump in Washington, D.C.
Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press
A federal judge refused Tuesday to immediately block billionaire Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing government data systems or participating in worker layoffs.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan found that there are legitimate questions about Musk’s authority but said there isn’t evidence of the kind of grave legal harm that would justify a temporary restraining order.
The decision came in a lawsuit filed by 14 Democratic states challenging DOGE’s authority to access sensitive government data. The attorneys general argued that Musk is wielding the kind of power that the Constitution says can be held only by those who are elected or confirmed by the Senate.
The Trump administration, for its part, has maintained that layoffs are coming from agency heads, and asserted that despite his public cheering of the effort Musk isn’t directly running DOGE’s day-to-day operations himself.
DOGE has tapped into computer systems across multiple agencies with the blessing of President Trump, digging into budgets and searching for what he calls waste, fraud and abuse, even as a growing number of lawsuits allege DOGE is violating the law.
Chutkan recognized the concerns of the group of states, which include New Mexico and Arizona.
“DOGE’s unpredictable actions have resulted in considerable uncertainty and confusion,” she wrote. Their questions about Musk’s apparent “unchecked authority” and lack of congressional oversight for DOGE are legitimate and they may be able to successfully argue them later.
Still, at this point, it remains unclear exactly how DOGE’s work will affect the states, and judges can issue orders only to block specific, immediate harms, she found.
Chutkan, who was nominated by President Obama, previously oversaw the now-dismissed criminal election interference case against Trump in Washington, D.C.
Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press
A federal judge refused Tuesday to immediately block billionaire Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing government data systems or participating in worker layoffs.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan found that there are legitimate questions about Musk’s authority but said there isn’t evidence of the kind of grave legal harm that would justify a temporary restraining order.
The decision came in a lawsuit filed by 14 Democratic states challenging DOGE’s authority to access sensitive government data. The attorneys general argued that Musk is wielding the kind of power that the Constitution says can be held only by those who are elected or confirmed by the Senate.
The Trump administration, for its part, has maintained that layoffs are coming from agency heads, and asserted that despite his public cheering of the effort Musk isn’t directly running DOGE’s day-to-day operations himself.
DOGE has tapped into computer systems across multiple agencies with the blessing of President Trump, digging into budgets and searching for what he calls waste, fraud and abuse, even as a growing number of lawsuits allege DOGE is violating the law.
Chutkan recognized the concerns of the group of states, which include New Mexico and Arizona.
“DOGE’s unpredictable actions have resulted in considerable uncertainty and confusion,” she wrote. Their questions about Musk’s apparent “unchecked authority” and lack of congressional oversight for DOGE are legitimate and they may be able to successfully argue them later.
Still, at this point, it remains unclear exactly how DOGE’s work will affect the states, and judges can issue orders only to block specific, immediate harms, she found.
Chutkan, who was nominated by President Obama, previously oversaw the now-dismissed criminal election interference case against Trump in Washington, D.C.
Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press
