The Supreme Court on Friday handed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) two major victories in its expanding legal battle over drastic efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy.  

In two separate emergency rulings issued simultaneously, the court lifted a block on DOGE personnel accessing sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) systems and wiped a ruling forcing DOGE to turn over discovery in a records lawsuit. 

Both rulings appeared to be along the Supreme Court’s ideological lines, with the court’s three Democratic-appointed justices publicly dissenting.  

The decisions come as President Trump’s relationship with billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk, the face of DOGE for months, publicly imploded Thursday. His administration continues to defend DOGE’s work in the courts.  

Social Security 

In the Social Security case, the justices lifted a Maryland-based federal judge’s order blocking DOGE from snooping around the SSA’s systems that contain personally identifiable information, including Social Security numbers, medical and mental health records, bank data, and earnings history. 

The majority did not explain their reasoning, only saying that “SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency record” under the present circumstances. 

In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the Trump administration hadn’t met the court’s high bar for emergency relief, accusing their colleagues of “jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking.”  

“The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration,” Jackson wrote. 

“I would proceed without fear or favor to require DOGE and the Government to do what all other litigants must do to secure a stay from this Court,” she continued. 

Justice Elena Kagan also dissented, but she did not join the duo’s opinion.

The challenge to DOGE’s ability to poke around in SSA’s systems came from a coalition of government unions, backed by the left-leaning legal group Democracy Forward, that claimed the advisory group’s unfettered access to the sensitive data ran afoul of privacy laws and the SSA’s own rules and regulations. 

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander’s order allowed the SSA to provide DOGE with access to redacted or anonymized data and records, but it required DOGE agents to receive the necessary training for those systems. She wrote that DOGE’s efforts to slim down the federal bureaucracy weren’t the problem at hand, but rather “how they want to do the work.”  

Hollander is an appointee of former President Obama. 

Solicitor General D. John Sauer had argued that her preliminary injunction undermined DOGE’s mission to streamline and modernize the government while rooting out waste and fraud. 

He criticized the nationwide relief as a "now-familiar theme,” alluding to several Justice Department emergency appeals challenging universal injunctions — a practice the justices heard arguments about last month in the administration’s appeal of an order blocking Trump’s bid to narrow birthright citizenship. 

“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 wrote in the government’s emergency application. 

Records lawsuit 

The Supreme Court’s second emergency decision stems from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against DOGE. 

The government had asked the justices to overturn a judge’s order allowing limited 
discovery into whether DOGE is an “agency,” which would dictate whether it’s subject to FOIA requests. 

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an appointee of former President Obama, directed the release of all “recommendations” DOGE made to various federal agencies, in addition to other internal documents. He also ordered a deposition of acting DOGE Administrator Amy Gleason.    

By agreeing to wipe that order, the Supreme Court’s decision marks a major victory for Trump administration's efforts to keep DOGE’s inner workings behind the veil. The majority said Cooper’s order was “not appropriately tailored” to whether DOGE was an agency. 

“Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications,” the court wrote in its unsigned ruling. 

The three Democratic-appointed justices again publicly dissented, but they didn’t offer an explanation. 

Sauer argued that DOGE is a “presidential advisory body” housed within the Executive Office of the president — not an agency.  

He said that Cooper's order would “significantly distract” from DOGE’s mission to identify and eliminate “fraud, waste and abuse” within the federal government, calling the discovery ordered “extraordinarily overbroad and intrusive.” 

“That order turns FOIA on its head,” Sauer claimed, “effectively giving respondent a win on the merits of its FOIA suit under the guise of figuring out whether FOIA even applies.” 

The legal challenge was mounted by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which argued that the public has a right to know about DOGE’s “secretive operations.” It is one of many designed to test whether DOGE must respond to FOIA requests. 

Several legal battles linked to DOGE have reached the Supreme Court, but these two cases are the first where DOGE is a respondent.

This story was updated at 5:19 p.m.