Victory! Federal Court Rejects Liberal Attempt To Block DOGE From Accessing the Information It Needs

In a blow to the administrative state, a judge just denied a request to block DOGE from carrying out its duties. Today marks a significant victory for constitutional governance and fiscal responsibility. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has denied a preliminary injunction sought by the Alliance for Retired Americans in their lawsuit against Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. In a decisive ruling issued by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to obstruct the Treasury Department from accessing the information DOGE needs to carry out its functions. We filed an amicus brief in this case, and now the judge has, in this crucial decision, decided not to block DOGE from the information it needs to carry out its functions.

In a shocking overreach, the plaintiffs are attempting to prevent the Executive branch from accessing its own information needed to carry out constitutional duties. Our brief strongly asserts that such unprecedented interference would violate the fundamental principle of separation of powers that has been respected since our nation’s founding.

The Constitution establishes a unitary Executive branch under the President’s authority, with all Executive power vested in the President as head of the Executive branch. The Treasury’s core functions of implementing fiscal policy are quintessentially Executive responsibilities requiring presidential oversight. Lawsuits that attempt to block the Executive branch from accessing its own information are an affront to the separation of powers.

The judge ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show the irreparable injury that is necessary to justify a preliminary injunction. The lawsuit alleges that there was a risk that DOGE would improperly share information outside the government. In response, the court ruled that the group that attacked Trump’s order has not shown that any improper disclosure of private information outside the federal government has taken place or that any such dissemination is planned in the future. There was no evidence to show that improper dissemination of private information was likely, and in the absence of that evidence, the plaintiffs hadn’t justified the injunction they sought.

The court reasoned:

Plaintiffs’ inability to show a likelihood of future wrongful dissemination of their members’ private information is fatal to their Motion. Under the law of this Circuit, an increased risk of future harm, however grave that harm may be, is not sufficient to support a preliminary injunction in the absence of a showing that the threatened harm is likely to materialize. Therefore, merely asserting that the Treasury DOGE Team’s operations increase the risk of a catastrophic data breach or public disclosure of sensitive information from BFS systems is not sufficient to support a preliminary injunction.

This analysis reflects a core problem with many of the lawsuits filed against the Trump Administration: These lawsuits are based on what people think the government might do, rumors and speculation, rather than what it has actually done. Here, a lawsuit was based on alleged fears about DOGE sharing information, but the plaintiffs failed to prove that DOGE actually imminently planned to make their private information public or to share any information with individuals outside the federal government. Speculation may be fine for the mainstream media, but it won’t be sufficient in court.

At its core, this case was about whether unelected special interest groups could override the lawful authority of duly appointed government officials. The court’s denial of the injunction reaffirms a fundamental constitutional principle: Policy decisions regarding the nation’s finances belong to Executive branch officials appointed by our elected President – not to activist organizations seeking to advance their agenda through judicial means.

The ACLJ has filed in other crucial cases supporting President Trump’s Executive orders. In one case in Rhode Island, we filed an amicus brief supporting the President’s authority to enact necessary funding pauses. The far-Left judge (the only one to reject one of our briefs in these cases) has now issued a broad order, barring the President from pausing funding. The President has appealed that decision, and we anticipate filing a brief in support of the President’s appeal. In another case in New York, we filed another amicus brief supporting DOGE’s efforts. The judge there also issued a preliminary injunction, and we will monitor for any appeal there also. We also will be filing in support of the President’s authority to take action against illegal racial discrimination disguised as DEI.

The ACLJ continues to defend crucial constitutional principles in courts across America. The ACLJ has long advocated for fiscal responsibility and the proper separation of powers, and today’s ruling advances both of these critical principles. We’re asking the courts to deny all these attempts to undermine presidential authority and maintain the proper constitutional balance of powers established by our Founders.