Judge blocks 3 agencies from disclosing sensitive personal data to DOGE

A federal judge has indefinitely denied the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to personal data from three federal agencies as the federal expenditure watchdog continues to cut down the size of the government. 

US District Judge Deborah Boardman issued the ruling Monday to prevent the Department of Education, the Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from disclosing personal identifying information belonging to roughly two million plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit.

In a 68-page opinion, Boardman discussed how the Privacy Act of 1974 was designed to prevent unauthorized data disclosure and warned against the risks of centralizing personal information. 

“The defendants violated the APA by not acting in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; that they will suffer irreparable harm if the defendants are not enjoined; and that the balance of the equities and public interest weigh favor of preliminary injunctive relief,” said the federal judge in her ruling.

Preliminary injunction granted against DOGE

Judge Boardman mentioned congressional concerns from the 1970s about government overreach, writing, “No matter how important or urgent the President’s DOGE agenda may be, federal agencies must execute it in accordance with the law. That likely did not happen in this case.”

Six individuals, including veterans, student loan applicants, and federal employees, brought the lawsuit, arguing that DOGE’s actions violated federal privacy protections. They were joined by five labor unions representing government workers, whose members’ sensitive data was stored in agency systems accessed by DOGE.

The plaintiffs convinced the court that the agencies had failed in their duty to safeguard the data, accusing them of “abandoning their duties as guardians and gatekeepers” of millions of Americans’ personal information.

‘Need-to-Know’ standard was not met

In its ruling, the court found the government was unable to justify why DOGE personnel required access to the data. Federal law mandates that officials must demonstrate a “need-to-know” basis before requesting sensitive records, a standard it determined had not been met.

“Access to those records by unauthorized government officials intrudes into their private lives. This intrusion is not speculative; it is actual. The plaintiffs allege that DOGE affiliates have accessed information in record systems at each of the agencies,” Boardman’s statement noted.

The plaintiffs had initially sought a sweeping injunction blocking DOGE’s access to all individuals’ data held by the agencies, but the judge denied the order. The ruling only applies to the two million plaintiffs in the case.

Monday’s decision follows Boardman’s earlier temporary restraining order on February 24, which prevented DOGE from accessing Education Department and OPM records. 

At the time, she declined to extend the order to Treasury data, citing a separate preliminary injunction from another federal judge that already restricted DOGE’s access to Treasury records.

More legal challenges charge at DOGE

The lawsuit is one of several legal clashes the government department faces. More than a dozen lawsuits are pending against DOGE, targeting both its structure and its access to various federal systems.

In a court battle that took two rulings and concluded on March 13, the Trump administration admitted to terminating nearly 25,000 recently hired federal employees and is now working to reinstate them after a court ruled the dismissals were likely unlawful.

According to court filings submitted last Monday in Baltimore’s federal court, officials from 18 federal agencies confirmed that the affected workers would be reinstated and placed on paid administrative leave, at least temporarily. The Oval Office, however, has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision to rehire the workers today.

Moreover, the administration is also facing a lawsuit for DOGE’s actions at the US Agency for International Development (USAID). A federal judge in Maryland last week ruled that the agency’s mass terminations were likely unconstitutional but did not call for the government to reverse the layoffs or fully restore USAID operations.

Current and former USAID employees had filed lawsuits to challenge the department, but the White House appealed the decision, adding that it will use all legal options to ensure that DOGE’s actions are not undone.

Cryptopolitan Academy: Tired of market swings? Learn how DeFi can help you build steady passive income. Register Now