Categories
  Encyclosphere.org ENCYCLOREADER
  supported by EncyclosphereKSF

Lawsuits involving the Department of Government Efficiency

From Wikipedia - Reading time: 30 min

The actions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), informally headed by Elon Musk, are the subject of ongoing lawsuits.[1] Legal experts have described many of DOGE's actions as illegal, breaking multiple privacy, security, and congressional laws and regulations. It has been described as taking a "move fast and break things" approach. Legal analysts have alleged breaches of law regarding aspects of the Privacy Act, Internal Revenue Code, and Federal Information Security Modernization Act. Forcing workers out of their offices and claims of "deleting" agencies and seizure of funds authorized by Congress have been described as breaking Article 1 of the United States Constitution and constituting a potential "constitutional crisis".[2][3][4][5]

Legal proceedings have been complicated by difficulties in establishing basic facts, such as Musk's role, the identities and formal powers of his associates, and the unclear relationship among Musk, DOGE, and political appointees backed by Musk. There have also been questions about how many of Musk's associates have been detailed to specific agencies, whether they act as employees of those agencies or of the White House, and what formal powers they have to demand access to agency computer systems.[6][7]

On February 5, Republican members of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform blocked an effort by committee Democrats to subpoena Musk.[8] The White House and the Republican Party have defended DOGE, Musk, Trump, and other plaintiffs, stating they are in full compliance with federal law.

Disclosure of personal and financial records

[edit]

Multiple lawsuits accuse DOGE and Musk of having broken the Privacy Act of 1974.[9] DOGE has given conflicting testimonies on the data it has accessed, the identity of the DOGE members who have accessed it, and the reasons why they did.[10]

Access to government computer systems

[edit]
See also: Elon Musk and unions

On February 5, several labors unions—the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, and Communication Workers of America—along with the Economic Policy Institute filed a lawsuit to prevent DOGE from accessing computer systems at the Department of Labor (DOL), subsequently amending the suit to also include systems at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). They asked for a temporary restraining order, which was denied on February 7. On February 27, the judge, John Bates, ordered the Trump administration to make four witnesses available for depositions, one each from DOGE and the three federal departments.[11][12][13]

On February 4, three federal employee unions—the Alliance for Retired Americans, the AFGE, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—filed a lawsuit against the Treasury Department,[a] alleging that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent unlawfully granted DOGE access to sensitive data. The White House defended Musk's role, stating he had followed all federal laws.[15][16][17] On February 6, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly agreed to a proposal filed by the Justice Department to temporarily limit DOGE to "read-only" access of Treasury data until a hearing for a preliminary injunction could be held on February 24. Department of Justice lawyers struggled to explain how DOGE plans to use sensitive taxpayer data.[18] In the hearing, Kollar-Kotelly said that she had "concerns about the constitutionality of U.S.D.S.'s structure and operations". She also questioned the government's lawyer about who the DOGE administrator is and what Musk's specific role is in DOGE, but the lawyer said that he didn't know.[19]

On February 7, the University of California Student Association filed a lawsuit[b] against acting secretary of education Denise Carter and the Department of Education (ED) in the District of Columbia, claiming an "enormous and unprecedented" "intrusion into individuals' privacy".[20][21][22] The case has been assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss.[23]

On February 7, the ACLU filed Freedom of Information Act requests with over 40 federal agencies "for any records that reveal whether DOGE or its representatives have sought or obtained access to databases containing personally identifiable information, financial records, healthcare data, or other sensitive government-held records of Americans".[24]

On February 11, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed its own lawsuit[c] to prevent DOGE from accessing the Office of Personnel Management's data.[25]

  • Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00313[26]
  • American Civil Liberties Union v. Social Security Administration (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01217[27]
  • American Federation of Government Employees v. Office of Personnel Management (S.D.N.Y), 1:25-cv-01237[28]
  • American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00339[29]
  • American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-00596,[30] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1411,[31] appealed to the Supreme Court, Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 24A1063[32]
  • American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00430,[33] appealed to the Fourth Circuit, 25-1282[34]
  • Center for Taxpayer Rights v. Internal Revenue Service (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00457[35]
  • Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (E.D.V.A.) 1:25-cv-00255[36]
  • Morris v. Trump (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00435[37]
  • National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00380[38]
  • Nemeth-Greenleaf v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00407[39]
  • State of New York v. Donald J. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01144[40]
  • University of California Student Association v. Carter (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00354[41] (plaintiffs dismissed the action[1])

Compensation for access to data

[edit]

On February 12, a class action suit[d] was filed against Musk, Office of Personnel Management, Department of the Treasury and Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent.[42] Gribbon v. Musk claims that taxpayers, federal employees and those receiving benefits should be compensated for DOGE's access to their personal and financial data.[42] It has been assigned to judge Christopher R. Cooper.

  • Gribbon v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00422[43] (voluntary dismissal)

Federal deferred resignation program ("Fork in the Road" memo)

[edit]

A lawsuit, filed[e] on January 27 in the District Court for the District of Columbia by two federal employees against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), alleges that it failed to conduct a federally mandated assessment to evaluate and mitigate privacy risks associated with the alleged new email system's data collection on federal employees.[44][45] On February 3, four unions representing 800,000 federal employees filed suit[f] against the Treasury Department, arguing that OPM violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a legal basis for the buyout offer.[46] On February 6, Judge George O'Toole Jr. temporarily blocked Trump and DOGE from engaging in any further action related to the buyout until further arguments were heard.[47] On February 12, Judge O'Toole ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the buyout offer because they were not directly affected.[48]

  • Jane Does 1-2 v. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00234[49]
  • American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell (D. Mass), 1:25-cv-10276[50]

Dismantling of agencies

[edit]

AmeriCorps

[edit]
  • State of Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-01363[51]
  • Elev8 Baltimore, Inc. v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-01458[52]
  • Erie County New York v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00783[53] (voluntary dismissal)

National Endowment for the Humanities

[edit]
  • American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-03657[54]
  • The Authors Guild v. National Endowment for the Humanities (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-03923[55] (case consolidated with American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald)

U.S. African Development Foundation

[edit]
  • Brehm v. Marocco (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00660[56]

US Agency for International Development (USAID) firings and shutdown

[edit]

On February 6, a lawsuit[g] seeking to halt the shutdown of USAID was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by the American Foreign Service Association and the AFGE.[58] The judge, Carl J. Nichols, issued a temporary restraining order on February 7 against imminent plans for 2,200 employees to be placed on administrative leave and for overseas USAID workers to return to the US.[59] After a hearing, Judge Nichols extended the freeze through February 21.[60]

Nichols held a telephone hearing on February 19. After Trump-appointed USAID leader Peter Marocco initially told the court that overseas USAID employees would be given a choice as to whether remain abroad while on administrative leave, but days later told the court otherwise, Nichols called the government's contradictions "a mess" and ordered the DOJ to clarify its stance by February 20.[61]

  • American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00352[62]
  • AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00400,[63] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5046[64] and 25-5098,[65] appealed to the Supreme Court, Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, 24A831[66]
  • Global Health Council v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00402[67]
  • Personal Services Contractor Association v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00469[68]

Dismantling of independent organizations

[edit]

US Institute of Peace

[edit]
  • Pippenger v. U.S. DOGE Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01090[69]
  • U.S. Institute of Peace v. Jackson (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00804[70]

Establishment of DOGE

[edit]

With the signing of Executive Order 14158, Trump renamed the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) the U.S. DOGE Service (also USDS), and established the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, both under the authority of an administrator. Trump referred to Elon Musk as being in charge of DOGE. Amy Gleason was later identified as the acting administrator.

Appointments clause lawsuits

[edit]

A lawsuit by 26 USAID employees and contractors claims Elon Musk’s role as DOGE head violates the Appointments Clause, alleging he wields significant government authority without Senate confirmation.

On February 13, fourteen state attorneys general filed suit[h] against Musk, DOGE, and Trump in the District of Columbia, arguing that although Musk had been designated a special government employee, he was acting as a principal officer of the United States, and that the Appointments Clause required him to be confirmed by the Senate.[71] They requested a temporary restraining order preventing Musk and DOGE from firing employees or accessing information from multiple federal agencies. In its response, the Trump administration argued that Musk was a senior advisor to the president and had no formal authority.[72] On February 18, Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the request for the temporary restraining order, though she wrote that the states "legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight."[73]

  • Does 1-26 v. Musk (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00462-TDC,[74] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1273[75]
  • Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00643[76] (consolidated with State of New Mexico v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1.25-cv-00429)
  • State of New Mexico. v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1.25-cv-00429,[77] petitioned the court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit (D. Cir.), In re: Elon Musk, 25-5072[78]

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) lawsuits

[edit]

On January 20, the day of Trump's inauguration, The Washington Post learned of a pending lawsuit to be launched against DOGE minutes after Trump was to be sworn in, questioning whether DOGE is a presidential advisory commission obeying federal transparency rules about certain practices, such as disclosure and hiring.[79][80] The same day, three more lawsuits were filed against Trump, DOGE, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), alleging violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires that "the advisory committee have a fair balance in viewpoints represented, that they do not meet in secret, and that their records and work product be made available for public inspection".[81] All four lawsuits were filed in the District of Columbia.

The first suit[i] was filed by Public Citizen, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) against Trump and the OMB. The Center for Biological Diversity next filed suit against the OMB.[j] National Security Counselors sued DOGE, OMB, Office of Personnel Management, and multiple Trump administration officials,[k] while a coalition of non-government organizations filed suit against OMB and DOGE.[l][81]

Public Citizen, Lentini, and American Public Health Association were all assigned to Judge Jia M. Cobb; the government filed a motion to consolidate the cases on February 4, 2025, and they were consolidated on February 18.[82][83] Public Citizen dismissed its case without prejudice, but the other two cases continue.[1] Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior has been assigned to Judge Beryl A. Howell.

  • American Public Health Association v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00167[84] (consolidated with case no. 1:25-cv-00164, Public Citizen v. Trump)
  • Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00612[85]
  • Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00166[86] (consolidated with case no. 1:25-cv-00164, Public Citizen v. Trump)
  • Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00164[87] (case consolidated with Lentini v. DOGE and American Public Health Association v. OMB; Public Citizen dismissed its case without prejudice, but the other two cases continue[1])

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), public records and record-keeping requirements

[edit]

On February 11, watchdog organization American Oversight filed a lawsuit to gain access to all of Musk's communications involving the termination of employees across the federal government. Its lawsuit states that DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[88][89]

On February 19, the nonpartisan watchdog group Project on Government Oversight sued Trump, DOGE, and the DOGE administrator over the claim that DOGE records are subject to the Presidential Records Act, and therefore not subject to public records requests. The lawsuit argues that DOGE is subject to the Federal Records Act since it is acting like a federal agency.[89]

On February 20, watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued DOGE to produce documents via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[90] On March 10, the presiding judge, Christopher R. Cooper, ordered DOGE to produce the documents for CREW, finding that DOGE's "secrecy" and "rapid pace" warranted "quick release of information about its structure and activities".[91][92] While making his ruling, Cooper concluded that "the authority exercised by [DOGE] across the federal government and the dramatic cuts it has apparently made with no congressional input appear to be unprecedented".[91][93] Cooper found that DOGE "obtained unprecedented access to sensitive personal and classified data and payment systems across federal agencies" and "appears to have the power not just to evaluate federal programs, but to drastically reshape and even eliminate them wholesale".[90][93] In mid-April, Cooper ordered additional discovery and ruled that Amy Gleason, DOGE's acting administrator, would have to sit for a deposition. The Department of Justice (DOJ) then petitioned the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for a writ of mandamus to prevent the deposition.[94] The appeals court stayed Cooper's ruling while it considered the petition, but on May 14, it rejected the petition.[95] On May 21, the DOJ appealed to the Supreme Court, asking it to stay Cooper's order and claiming that it was inappropriate to allow discovery before the court had determined whether DOGE was subject to FOIA.[96]

  • American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00409[97]
  • Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00165[98]
  • Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01768[99]
  • Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00511,[100] petition for a writ of mandamus (D.C. Cir.), In re: U.S. DOGE Service, 25-5130,[101] appealed to the Supreme Court as U.S. DOGE Service v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 24A1122[102]
  • Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00684[103]
  • Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Marshals Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00749[104]
  • The Intercept v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02404[105]
  • Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00527[106]

Large-scale reductions in force

[edit]

Class action lawsuits

[edit]

Thousands of federal employees have joined class action suits challenging the layoffs.[107]

On February 21, the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that investigates federal workers' complaints, decided that, in a case involving six probationary government workers at six different agencies, the workers had been illegally fired. The decision was revealed on February 24.[108]

  • American Association of People With Disabilities v. Dudek (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00977[109]
  • American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Ezell (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-01780,[110] appealed to the Ninth Circuit, 25-1677,[111] and Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees (Supreme Court), 24A904[112]
  • American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-03698,[113] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-3030[114]
  • American Library Association v. Sonderling, 1:25-cv-01050[115]
  • Jackson v. Kennedy (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01750[116]
  • National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald J. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00420[117] (voluntarily dismissed)
  • Pueblo of Isleta v. Secretary of the Department of the Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00696[118]
  • State of Maryland v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00748,[119] appealed to the Fourth Circuit, 25-1248[120]

Pauses and terminations of federal funds

[edit]

Denial of grants

[edit]
  • Child Trends, Incorporated v. United States Department of Education (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-01154[121]
  • Massachusetts Fair Housing Center v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Mass), 3:25-cv-30041[122]

Impoundment of allocated funds

[edit]
  • Sustainability Institute v. Trump (D.S.C.), 2:25-cv-02152[123]

Treasury payments

[edit]

District of Rhode Island

[edit]

On January 28, twenty-two state attorneys general filed suit[m] against Trump and the Treasury Department in the District of Rhode Island for a temporary retraining order (TRO) barring Trump from pausing any further federal aid.[124][125] On January 31, Judge John J. McConnell Jr., granted the TRO, effectively blocking Trump's federal aid freeze.[126][127] On February 10, finding that the Trump administration had failed to fully comply with the order, McConnell directed the Trump administration to immediately end any federal funding pause and restore previously frozen funds until a final ruling was made on a permanent injunction to be heard at a later time.[128][129]

The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said that "every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful".[130] The First Circuit refused to hear the appeal.[131]

Republican US Representative Andrew Clyde (GA-9) announced plans to file articles of impeachment against McConnell, calling him a "partisan activist weaponizing our judicial system to stop President Trump's funding freeze on woke and wasteful government spending".[132]

Southern District of New York

[edit]

On February 7, nineteen state attorneys general, largely the same from the Rhode Island federal case, filed suit[n] against Trump and the Treasury Department in the Southern District of New York over DOGE's actions within the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS).[133][134] It was initially assigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer for an emergency ruling,[135] and early the next morning, he issued a preliminary injunction barring DOGE members from accessing Treasury data and ordering all existing unauthorized copies to be deleted immediately.[136]

The White House called the ruling "absurd and judicial overreach" and referred to Engelmayer as an "activist". Musk posted similar sentiments on X and claimed Engelmayer was protecting scammers.[137] Conservative activist Charlie Kirk encouraged the Trump administration to defy the order should it become permanent.[137] That weekend, JD Vance posted on X that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power". Arkansas senator Tom Cotton called Engelmayer an "outlaw".[138]

The case was taken on by the judge assigned to the case, Jeannette Vargas, who on February 11 adjusted Engelmayer's ruling by allowing Treasury secretary Scott Bessent and other senior department leaders whose roles required Senate confirmation to access Treasury data.[139] A hearing was held before Vargas on February 14; she extended the injunction and said she would rule shortly on whether it would remain in place throughout the proceedings.[140][141][142] The case is expected to last months.[143]

Removal of independent agency heads

[edit]

Inter-American Foundation

[edit]
  • Aviel v. Gor (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00778,[144] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5105[145]

Requirement for employees to report accomplishments

[edit]

On February 22, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent an email to all federal employees, asking them to respond with "what you accomplished last week" by midnight EST on February 24. Shortly before the email went out, Musk posted about it on X, saying that "Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation." A claim that this action was unlawful was added to a pending lawsuit against the OPM for the mass layoffs of probationary workers. Some agencies instructed their employees not to respond to the email.[146] On February 24, the OPM announced that employees were not required to respond to the email.[147]

Review of voter registration information

[edit]
  • Democratic National Committee v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00952[148] (consolidated with League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President)
  • League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00946[149]
  • League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00955[150] (consolidated with League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President)

Case summaries

[edit]
Case Court Case no.(s) First filing date Outcome Notes Ref.
Public Citizen Inc., et al. v. Donald J. Trump and Office of Management and Budget U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00164[151] January 20, 2025 Consolidated with case no. 1:25-cv-00167. [1]
Jerald Lentini, et al. v. Department of Government Efficiency, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00166[152] January 20, 2025 Consolidated with case no. 1:25-cv-00164. [1][11]
American Public Health Association, et al. v. Office of Management and Budget, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00167[153] January 20, 2025 Voluntarily dismissal by plaintiffs on May 12, 2025. Consolidated with case no. 1:25-cv-00164. [1]
Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00165[154] January 20, 2025 [1]
J. Doe 1-26 v. Musk, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 8:25-cv-00462-TDC[155] February 13, 2025 [1]
New Mexico, et al. v. Musk, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1.25-cv-00429[156] February 13, 2025 Action dismissed on May 27, 2025, against President Trump as defendant; but not to others. [1]
Alliance for Retired Americans, et al. v. Bessent, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00313[157] February 3, 2025 [1]
New York, et al., v. Trump, et al. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 1:25-cv-01144-JAV[158] February 7, 2025 [1]
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, et al. v. Department of Labor, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00339[159] February 5, 2025 [1]
University of California Student Association v. Carter, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00354[160] February 7, 2025 Voluntary dismissal by plaintiffs on April 16, 2025. [1]
National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00380[161] February 9, 2025 [1]
American Federation of Teachers, et al. v. Bessent, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 8:25-cv-00430[162] February 10, 2025 [1]
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, et al. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Virginia 1:25-cv-00255[163] February 10, 2025 [1]
American Federation of Government Employees, et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 1:25-cv-01237[164] February 11, 2025 [1]
Nemeth-Greenleaf, et al. v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00407[165] February 11, 2025 [1]
Andrea Gribbon, et al. v. Elon Musk, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00422[166] February 12, 2025 Voluntary dismissal by plaintiff on May 15, 2025. [1]
Center for Taxpayer Rights, et al. v. Internal Revenue Service, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00457[167] February 17, 2025 [1]
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Social Security Administration, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 1:25-cv-00596[168] February 21, 2025 Stay granted by SCOTUS pending appeal in lower court. [1][169]
Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00527[170] February 21, 2025 Plaintiff's preliminary injunction denied on June 17, 2025; action stayed on July 21, 2025 pending further order by court. [11]
Deborah Morris v. Donald Trump, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 1:25-cv-00435[171] February 11, 2025 Dismissed on February 12, 2025, for lack of standing. [11]
Jane Does 1-2 v. Office of Personnel Management U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00234[172] January 27, 2025 [11]
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00612[173] March 3, 2025 [11]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent, No. 1:25-cv-00313 (D.D.C. February 3, 2025)[14]
  2. ^ Univ. of California Student Ass'n v. Carter, No. 1:25-cv-00354 (D.D.C. February 7, 2025)
  3. ^ Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. U.S. Off. of Personnel Mgmt., No. 1:25-cv-01237 (S.D.N.Y. February 11, 2025)
  4. ^ Gribbon v. Musk, No. 1:25-cv-00422 (D.D.C. February 12, 2025)
  5. ^ Jane Does 1–2 v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 1:25-cv-00234 (D.D.C. January 27, 2025)
  6. ^ New York et al. v. Scott Bessent et al., No. 25-313 (D.D.C. February 3, 2025)
  7. ^ American Foreign Service Ass'n v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00352 (D.D.C. February 6, 2025)[57]
  8. ^ New Mexico v. Musk, No. 25-cv-429 (D.D.C. February 13, 2025)
  9. ^ Public Citizen v. Trump, No. 25-cv-164 (D.D.C. January 20, 2025)
  10. ^ Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget, No. 25-165 (D.D.C. January 20, 2025)
  11. ^ Lentini v. Dept. of Government Efficiency, No. 1:25-cv-00166 (D.D.C. January 20, 2025)
  12. ^ Amer. Public Health Ass'n v. Office of Management and Budget, No. 25-cv-167 (D.D.C. January 20, 2025)
  13. ^ New York et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:25-cv-00039 (D.R.I. January 28, 2025)
  14. ^ New York et al. v. Trump et al., No. 25-CV-1144 (S.D.N.Y. February 7, 2025)

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v "Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions". Just Security. March 19, 2025. Archived from the original on March 19, 2025. Retrieved March 19, 2025.
  2. ^ Peters, Adele (February 5, 2025). "What will it take to stop Elon Musk and DOGE?". Fast Company. Retrieved February 6, 2025.
  3. ^ Chait, Jonathan (February 4, 2025). "The Constitutional Crisis Is Here". The Atlantic. Retrieved February 6, 2025.
  4. ^ Alms, Natalie (February 5, 2025). "Musk's DOGE efforts pose a 'constitutional crisis,' experts warn". NextGov/FCW. Retrieved February 6, 2025.
  5. ^ "Are we in a constitutional crisis? : Consider This from NPR". NPR. Retrieved February 12, 2025.
  6. ^ Montague, Zach (February 19, 2025). "Courts Force a Window Into Musk's Secretive Unit". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 24, 2025.
  7. ^ Scherer, Michael; Parker, Ashley; Wong, Matteo; Harris, Shane (February 20, 2025). "This Is What Happens When the DOGE Guys Take Over". The Atlantic. Retrieved February 24, 2025.
  8. ^ Beitsch, Rebecca (February 5, 2025). "GOP quashes Oversight Democrats' effort to subpoena Elon Musk". The Hill.
  9. ^ "11 lawsuits challenging DOGE focus on data access and privacy". NBC News. February 19, 2025. Retrieved May 9, 2025.
  10. ^ Fowler, Stephen (March 26, 2025). "DOGE says it needs to know the government's most sensitive data, but can't say why". NPR. Retrieved May 10, 2025.
  11. ^ a b c d e f "Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government". Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  12. ^ "Unions Expand Suit to Block Elon Musk from Accessing Private Data at DOL, HHS and CFPB". AFL-CIO. February 13, 2025. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  13. ^ Tillman, Zoe (February 27, 2025). "Judge Orders Musk's DOGE, Agency Staff to Testify in Lawsuit". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  14. ^ "ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS v. BESSENT, 1:25-cv-00313, (D.D.C.)" (PDF). Retrieved February 7, 2025.
  15. ^ "Treasury Secretary Bessent Sued Over Giving Access to Musk's DOGE Team". Bloomberg. February 4, 2025. Retrieved February 5, 2025.
  16. ^ "Elon Musk's Treasury Payment Data Access Raises Legal Concerns". The New York Times. February 3, 2025. Retrieved February 5, 2025.
  17. ^ "Treasury Department Sued Over DOGE Payment Access". The Hill. February 4, 2025. Retrieved February 5, 2025.
  18. ^ Barnes, Daniel (February 6, 2025). "Judge weighs blocking DOGE from accessing Treasury Department records". ABC News. American Broadcasting Company. Retrieved February 5, 2025.
  19. ^ Feuer, Alan (February 24, 2025). "Judge Questions Constitutionality of Musk's DOGE Operation". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 25, 2025.
  20. ^ Schonfeld, Zach (February 7, 2025). "Public Citizen steps up fight against DOGE access with Education Department lawsuit". The Hill. Retrieved February 14, 2025.
  21. ^ Belanger, Ashley (February 7, 2025). "DOGE can't use student loan data to dismantle the Education Dept., lawsuit says". Ars Technica. Retrieved February 8, 2025.
  22. ^ "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (PDF). Court Listener. February 7, 2025.
  23. ^ Lonas Cochran, Lexi (February 11, 2025). "DOGE personnel to be kept out of Education Department systems until Feb. 17: Lawsuit". The Hill.
  24. ^ "ACLU Seeks Records on DOGE's Unrestricted Access to Americans' Data, Urges Congress to Step Up". ACLU. February 7, 2025. Retrieved February 7, 2025.
  25. ^ Castro, Chiara (February 14, 2025). "Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency hit by another privacy lawsuit with millions impacted". TechRadar. Retrieved February 15, 2025.
  26. ^ "Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent, 1:25-cv-00313". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  27. ^ "American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Social Security Administration, 1:25-cv-01217". CourtListener. Retrieved May 11, 2025.
  28. ^ "American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-01237". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  29. ^ "American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor, 1:25-cv-00339". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  30. ^ "American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration, 1:25-cv-00596". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  31. ^ "American Federation of State, County and Municipal v. Social Security Administration, 25-1411". CourtListener. Retrieved June 17, 2025.
  32. ^ "Docket for 24A1063". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved June 17, 2025.
  33. ^ "American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent, 8:25-cv-00430". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  34. ^ "American Federation of Teachers v. Scott Bessent, 25-1282". CourtListener. Retrieved April 14, 2025.
  35. ^ "Center for Taxpayer Rights v. Internal Revenue Service, 1:25-cv-00457". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  36. ^ "Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-00255". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  37. ^ "Morris v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00435". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  38. ^ "National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, 1:25-cv-00380". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  39. ^ "Nemeth-Greenleaf v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-00407". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  40. ^ "State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, 1:25-cv-01144". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  41. ^ "University of California Student Association v. Carter, 1:25-cv-00354". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  42. ^ a b Rizzi, Corrado (February 14, 2025). "Class Action Lawsuit Against Musk Says DOGE Must Pay Taxpayers for Federal Database Access". ClassAction.org. Retrieved February 16, 2025. A class action against Elon Musk alleges taxpayers, federal employees and those receiving benefits should be compensated for DOGE's access to their personal and financial data
  43. ^ "Gribbon v. Musk, 1:25-cv-00422". CourtListener. Retrieved March 28, 2025.
  44. ^ Sneed, Tierney (January 28, 2025). "Lawsuit alleges new Trump administration email system for federal employees raises privacy concerns | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved February 14, 2025.
  45. ^ "Complaint – Class Action" (PDF). Court Listener. January 27, 2025.
  46. ^ "Advocacy Group, Unions Sue Treasury Department Over Illegal DOGE Data Access". www.afge.org. February 3, 2025. Retrieved February 14, 2025.
  47. ^ Charalambous, Peter (February 6, 2025). "Judge temporarily blocks Trump's federal government employee buyout". ABC News. Retrieved February 14, 2025.
  48. ^ Whitehurst, Lindsay; Megerian, Chris; Casy, Michael (February 12, 2025). "Judge removes key legal hurdle for Trump's plan to trim federal workforce with deferred resignations". AP News. Retrieved February 14, 2025.
  49. ^ "Doe v. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-00234". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  50. ^ "American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell, 1:25-cv-10276". CourtListener. Retrieved March 29, 2025.
  51. ^ "State of Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service, 1:25-cv-01363". CourtListener. Retrieved June 17, 2025.
  52. ^ "Elev8 Baltimore, Inc. v. Corporation for National and Community Service, 1:25-cv-01458". CourtListener. Retrieved June 17, 2025.
  53. ^ "Erie County New York v. Corporation for National and Community Service, 1:25-cv-00783". CourtListener. Retrieved April 7, 2025.
  54. ^ "American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald, 1:25-cv-03657". CourtListener. Retrieved May 23, 2025.
  55. ^ "The Authors Guild v. National Endowment for the Humanities, 1:25-cv-03923". CourtListener. Retrieved June 19, 2025.
  56. ^ "Brehm v. Marocco, 1:25-cv-00660". CourtListener. Retrieved March 29, 2025.
  57. ^ "American Foreign Service Association v. Trump" (PDF). United States District Court for the District of Columbia. February 6, 2025. Retrieved February 7, 2025.
  58. ^ Demirjian, Karoun; Kavi, Aishvarya (February 6, 2025). "Trump Administration to Lay Off Nearly All of U.S. Aid Agency's Staff". The New York Times. Retrieved February 7, 2025.
  59. ^ Crowley, Michael; Cameron, Chris (February 7, 2025). "A judge says he will freeze elements of Trump's plan to shut down U.S.A.I.D." The New York Times. Retrieved February 7, 2025.
  60. ^ Lo Wang, Hansi (February 13, 2025). "A judge extends the pause on Trump's plan to put USAID workers on leave". NPR. Retrieved February 17, 2025.
  61. ^ Cheney, Kyle (February 19, 2025). "Judge says Trump administration made a 'mess' of plans for overseas USAID workers". Politico. Retrieved February 19, 2025.
  62. ^ "American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00352". CourtListener. Retrieved March 1, 2025.
  63. ^ "AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State, 1:25-cv-00400". CourtListener. Retrieved March 1, 2025.
  64. ^ "AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State, 25-5046". CourtListener. Retrieved May 11, 2025.
  65. ^ "AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State, 25-5098". CourtListener. Retrieved May 11, 2025.
  66. ^ "Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Docket for 24A831". U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved May 11, 2025.
  67. ^ "Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump, 1:25-cv-00402". CourtListener. Retrieved March 1, 2025.
  68. ^ "Personal Services Contractor Association v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00469". CourtListener. Retrieved March 1, 2025.
  69. ^ "Pippenger v. U.S. DOGE Service, 1:25-cv-01090". CourtListener. Retrieved May 23, 2025.
  70. ^ "United States Institute of Peace v. Jackson, 1:25-cv-00804". CourtListener. Retrieved May 21, 2025.
  71. ^ Levine, Mike; Charalambous, Peter (February 13, 2025). "14 states sue DOGE, blasting Musk's 'unprecedented' power as unconstitutional". ABC News. Retrieved February 19, 2025.
  72. ^ Picchi, Aimee (February 18, 2025). "Musk is not an employee of DOGE and "has no actual or formal authority," White House says". CBS News. Retrieved February 19, 2025.
  73. ^ Queen, Jack; Hals, Tom (February 18, 2025). "US judge will not block Elon Musk from firing federal workers, accessing data". Reuters. Retrieved February 18, 2025.
  74. ^ "Does 1-26 v. Musk, 8:25-cv-00462". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  75. ^ "J. Does 1-26 v. Elon Musk, 25-1273". CourtListener. Retrieved June 17, 2025.
  76. ^ "Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk, 1:25-cv-00643". CourtListener. Retrieved March 28, 2025.
  77. ^ "State of New Mexico v. Musk, 1:25-cv-00429". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  78. ^ "In re: Elon Musk, 25-5072". CourtListener. Retrieved April 7, 2025.
  79. ^ Helmore, Edward (January 20, 2025). "Elon Musk's Doge' expected to be sued moments after Trump's swearing in". The Guardian. Retrieved January 20, 2025.
  80. ^ Stein, Jeff (January 20, 2025). "Elon Musk's 'DOGE' to be sued within minutes of Trump's inauguration". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 20, 2025.
  81. ^ a b Bower, Anna (January 20, 2025). "Advocacy Groups File Four Lawsuits Against Musk-Led DOGE". Lawfare. Archived from the original on January 20, 2025. Retrieved February 2, 2025.
  82. ^ "Motion to Consolidate Cases" (PDF). CourtListener. February 4, 2025. Retrieved February 8, 2025.
  83. ^ "Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency, 1:25-cv-00166 (D.D.C.)". Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  84. ^ "American Public Health Association v. Office of Management and Budget, 1:25-cv-00167". www.courtlistener.com. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  85. ^ "Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior, 1:25-cv-00612". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  86. ^ "Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency, 1:25-cv-00166". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  87. ^ "Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00164". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  88. ^ Cohen, Marshall (February 14, 2025). "The almighty Musk: How the world's richest man became Washington's most powerful bureaucrat | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved February 22, 2025.
  89. ^ a b Watson, Kathryn (February 21, 2025). "Watchdog group sues for DOGE records, arguing they should be made available to public". CBS News. Retrieved February 22, 2025.
  90. ^ a b Raymond, Nate (March 11, 2025). "US judge says Musk's DOGE must release records on operations run in 'secrecy'". Reuters. Retrieved March 11, 2025.
  91. ^ a b Montague, Zach; Kim, Minho (March 10, 2025). "Musk's Team Must Produce Documents to Comply With Open Records Laws, Judge Says". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 11, 2025. Retrieved March 11, 2025.
  92. ^ Gerstein, Josh; Cheney, Kyle (March 10, 2025). "Judge orders urgent release of DOGE records, citing 'unprecedented' power and 'unusual secrecy'". Politico. Retrieved March 11, 2025.
  93. ^ a b Stark, Ian (March 11, 2025). "DOGE ordered to eventually honor Freedom of Information Act requests". UPI. Retrieved March 11, 2025.
  94. ^ Kalmbacher, Colin (April 17, 2025). "DOJ asks judge to pause order allowing watchdog to depose DOGE administrator". Law & Crime. Retrieved May 14, 2025.
  95. ^ Cai, Sophia; Johansen, Ben; Sentner, Irie (May 14, 2025). "DOGE hits a wall on the Hill". Politico. Retrieved May 14, 2025.
  96. ^ Howe, Amy (May 21, 2025). "Trump asks high court to pause another suit against DOGE". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 21, 2025.
  97. ^ "American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, 1:25-cv-00409". CourtListener. Retrieved April 4, 2025.
  98. ^ "Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget, 1:25-cv-00165". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  99. ^ "Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1:25-cv-01768". CourtListener. Retrieved June 20, 2025.
  100. ^ "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service, 1:25-cv-00511". CourtListener. Retrieved April 4, 2025.
  101. ^ "In re: U.S. DOGE Service, 25-5130". CourtListener. Retrieved May 14, 2025.
  102. ^ "U.S. DOGE Service v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Docket for 24A1122". U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved May 21, 2025.
  103. ^ "Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1:25-cv-00684". CourtListener. Retrieved April 4, 2025.
  104. ^ "Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Marshals Service, 1:25-cv-00749". CourtListener. Retrieved April 4, 2025.
  105. ^ "The Intercept v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, 1:25-cv-02404". CourtListener. Retrieved May 14, 2025.
  106. ^ "Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00527". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  107. ^ Katz, Eric (February 18, 2025). "Thousands join class actions as fired feds weigh options to challenge Trump's moves". Government Executive. Archived from the original on February 20, 2025. Retrieved February 20, 2025.
  108. ^ Blumenthal, Paul (February 24, 2025). "Government Oversight Agency Rules Elon Musk's Mass Firings Are Illegal". HuffPost. Retrieved February 25, 2025.
  109. ^ "American Association of People With Disabilities v. Dudek, 1:25-cv-00977". CourtListener. Retrieved April 6, 2025.
  110. ^ "American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. United States Office of Personnel Management, 3:25-cv-01780". CourtListener. Retrieved March 29, 2025.
  111. ^ "American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. United States Office of Personnel..., 25-1677". CourtListener. Retrieved March 29, 2025.
  112. ^ "Docket for 24A904". U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved April 14, 2025.
  113. ^ Poritz, Isaiah; Purifoy, Parker (May 9, 2025). "Trump Must Halt Mass Layoffs of Federal Workers, Judge Rules". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved May 9, 2025.
  114. ^ "American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump, et al., 25-3030". CourtListener. Retrieved June 19, 2025.
  115. ^ "American Library Association v. Sonderling, 1:25-cv-01050". CourtListener. Retrieved April 14, 2025.
  116. ^ "Jackson v. Kennedy, 1:25-cv-01750". CourtListener. Retrieved June 19, 2025.
  117. ^ "National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald J. Trump, 1:25-cv-00420". CourtListener. Retrieved March 29, 2025.
  118. ^ "Pueblo of Isleta v. Secretary of the Department of the Interior, 1:25-cv-00696". CourtListener. Retrieved March 29, 2025.
  119. ^ "State of Maryland v. United States Department of Agriculture, 1:25-cv-00748". CourtListener. Retrieved March 29, 2025.
  120. ^ "State of Maryland v. USDA, 25-1248". CourtListener. Retrieved May 13, 2025.
  121. ^ "Child Trends, Incorporated v. United States Department of Education, 8:25-cv-01154". CourtListener. Retrieved May 23, 2025.
  122. ^ "Massachusetts Fair Housing Center v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 3:25-cv-30041". CourtListener. Retrieved March 29, 2025.
  123. ^ "The Sustainability Institute v. Trump, 2:25-cv-02152". CourtListener. Retrieved April 4, 2025.
  124. ^ Lee, Ella (January 28, 2025). "Democrats sue White House budget office over federal grant freeze". The Hill. Archived from the original on February 6, 2025. Retrieved February 10, 2025.
  125. ^ "Request for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)". Court Listener. January 28, 2025. Retrieved February 14, 2025.
  126. ^ Schonfeld, Zach (January 31, 2025). "Judge formally blocks Trump's federal aid freeze". The Hill. Archived from the original on February 2, 2025. Retrieved February 10, 2025.
  127. ^ "Second federal judge orders temporary pause to Trump administration efforts to freeze funding". AP News. January 31, 2025. Retrieved February 10, 2025.
  128. ^ Quinn, Melissa (February 10, 2025). "Judge directs Trump officials to comply with earlier order halting funding freeze - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved February 10, 2025.
  129. ^ "Order" (PDF). Court Listener. February 10, 2025.
  130. ^ Schwartz, Mattathias (February 10, 2025). "White House Failed to Comply With Court Order, Judge Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved February 19, 2025.
  131. ^ Charalambous, Peter; Faulders, Katherine (February 11, 2025). "Appeals court denies Trump's request to lift order blocking freeze of billions in federal funding". ABC News. Retrieved February 19, 2025.
  132. ^ Solender, Andrew (February 15, 2025). "Republicans move to impeach judges who blocked Trump". Axios. Retrieved February 19, 2025.
  133. ^ Meko, Hurubie (February 7, 2025). "States say in lawsuit that Trump violated Constitution's basic precepts". The New York Times. Retrieved February 8, 2025.
  134. ^ "Request for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 65(b)" (PDF). AG.NY.gov. February 7, 2025. Retrieved February 14, 2025.
  135. ^ Schoonover, Nika (February 21, 2025). "Federal judge extends block on DOGE access to Treasury payment system". Courthouse News. Retrieved May 12, 2025.
  136. ^ Izaguirre, Anthony (February 8, 2025). "Federal judge blocks Elon Musk's DOGE from accessing sensitive US Treasury Department material". Associated Press News. Retrieved February 8, 2025.
  137. ^ a b Ruberg, Sara; Green, Erica L. (February 8, 2025). "Musk attacks judge who temporarily blocked access to Treasury data". The New York Times. Retrieved February 9, 2025.
  138. ^ Savage, Charlie; Kim, Minho (February 9, 2025). "Vance Says 'Judges Aren't Allowed to Control' Trump's 'Legitimate Power'". The New York Times. Retrieved February 12, 2025.
  139. ^ Scholfeld, Zach (February 11, 2025). "Judge adjusts ruling blocking Musk, DOGE from Treasury Department payment systems". The Hill. Retrieved February 11, 2025.
  140. ^ Meko, Hurubie; Nauman, Qasim (February 8, 2025). "Judge Halts Access to Treasury Payment Systems by Elon Musk's Team". The New York Times. Retrieved February 8, 2025.
  141. ^ Moench, Mallory (February 8, 2025). "Judge blocks Elon Musk's team from Treasury Department records". www.bbc.com.
  142. ^ Robins-Early, Nick (February 8, 2025). "Who is helping Elon Musk gut the US government?". The Guardian.
  143. ^ Meko, Hurubie; Parnell, Wesley (February 14, 2025). "Judge Extends Restrictions on Musk's Access to Sensitive Treasury Data". The New York Times. Retrieved February 19, 2025.
  144. ^ "Aviel v. Gor, 1:25-cv-00778". CourtListener. Retrieved March 29, 2025.
  145. ^ "Sara Aviel v. Sergio Gor, 25-5105". CourtListener. Retrieved June 17, 2025.
  146. ^ Gregorian, Dareh (February 24, 2025). "Trump calls Elon Musk's email ultimatum 'genius' as federal workers and some agencies push back". NBC News. Retrieved February 24, 2025.
  147. ^ Stein, Chris; Pilkington, Ed (February 24, 2025). "US personnel office walks back email ultimatum from Musk to workers". The Guardian. Retrieved February 24, 2025.
  148. ^ "Democratic National Committee v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00952". CourtListener. Retrieved April 4, 2025.
  149. ^ "League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President, 1:25-cv-00946". CourtListener. Retrieved April 4, 2025.
  150. ^ "League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00955". CourtListener. Retrieved April 4, 2025.
  151. ^ "Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00164". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  152. ^ "Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency, 1:25-cv-00166". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  153. ^ "American Public Health Association v. Office of Management and Budget, 1:25-cv-00167". www.courtlistener.com. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  154. ^ "Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget, 1:25-cv-00165". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  155. ^ "Does 1-26 v. Musk, 8:25-cv-00462". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  156. ^ "State of New Mexico v. Musk, 1:25-cv-00429". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  157. ^ "Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent, 1:25-cv-00313". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  158. ^ "State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, 1:25-cv-01144". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  159. ^ "American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor, 1:25-cv-00339". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  160. ^ "University of California Student Association v. Carter, 1:25-cv-00354". CourtListener. Retrieved February 28, 2025.
  161. ^ "National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, 1:25-cv-00380". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  162. ^ "American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent, 8:25-cv-00430". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  163. ^ "Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-00255". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  164. ^ "American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-01237". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  165. ^ "Nemeth-Greenleaf v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-00407". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  166. ^ "Gribbon v. Musk, 1:25-cv-00422". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  167. ^ "Center for Taxpayer Rights v. Internal Revenue Service, 1:25-cv-00457". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  168. ^ "American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration, 1:25-cv-00596". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  169. ^ "SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. June 6, 2025. Retrieved July 25, 2025.
  170. ^ "Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00527". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  171. ^ "Morris v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00435". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  172. ^ "Doe v. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-00234". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
  173. ^ "Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior, 1:25-cv-00612". CourtListener. Retrieved March 5, 2025.
[edit]
Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_involving_the_Department_of_Government_Efficiency
1 | Status: cached on August 18 2025 05:20:02
↧ Download as ZWI file
Encyclosphere.org EncycloReader is supported by the EncyclosphereKSF