The case of whether to give employees of the Department of Government Operations access to large amounts of public information on several organizations that have violated federal and administrative privacy laws will argue whether DOGE agents are legitimate government employees, said a district court judge.
The AFL-CIO sufficiently proved that the way the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services gave DOGE-affiliated workers access to sensitive information was “inconsistent” with federal privacy laws but there are still many questions about whether the workers were employed by the unions themselves, Judge John D. Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled.
“Here, the factual disputes surrounding the facts underlying the plaintiffs’ APA claims—including whether the Agencies changed their data access policies for DOGE’s partners, and whether DOGE created employee employment relationships that are not employees of the Agencies—are ongoing,” he said in his opinion.
A group of labor unions and nonprofits filed a lawsuit early last year over DOGE’s efforts to use sensitive data systems at the DOL, HHS, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The effort was being carried out without legal authority and in violation of the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, they argued.
Bates has previously refused two separate requests for emergency assistance. On Tuesday he rejected both sides’ motions for summary judgment.
The unions’ arguments hinged largely on whether the DOGE agencies were directly employed employees of an agency with a legitimate need to access its operations, the judge said.
The government argued that the joint agencies were hired by the US Digital Service and were detailed to certain organizations to fulfill the interests of the system to eliminate fraud and waste. Although Bates said the structure is unlikely to violate the Privacy Act, he was unsure because HHS and DOL declined to answer questions about the number of DOGE-affiliated employees currently employed there.
“As of mid-March 2025, the Council has little knowledge of DOGE’s duties at HHS and DOL,” Bates said. “HHS expects its DOGE initiative to continue, while the DOL has confirmed that as of the fall of 2025, no DOGE members will remain at the agency.”
In an opinion, the judge said he would compel the agencies to provide more information.
Access to Sensitive Information
Tuesday’s comment sheds light on the data DOGE members have access to and the speedy process to allow them access.
The DOL gave them access to its financial management system that contains employees’ social security numbers and contract information. HHS has given DOGE members access to “very sensitive information” about Medicare patients, including names, social security numbers, and medical information, which is outside the scope of the DOGE investigation outlined in President Donald Trump’s executive order, Bates said.
The reasons given by the administration for the scope and duration of DOGE’s inquiries are “inconsistent” with the available evidence, according to the opinion.
Bates disparaged the organization’s view of the general verdict, saying that DOGE members were likely to be tasked with developing modern software.
There are still debates about the statements of the organizations that they are simply following the orders of the administration, rather than choosing to change their policies.
“A reasonable court can give evidence to the organizations that the arrival of the DOGE did not announce a change in their data access policies, but it is the application of existing policies in new situations,” said Bates, concluding that the organization failed to confirm that the departments violated the Administrative Procedure Law, which can only be used to challenge the agency’s final decisions.
The plaintiffs were represented by the Democracy Forward Foundation and Relman Colfax PLLC. Attorneys from the Department of Justice represented the government.
The case is AFL-CIO v. DOL, DDC, No. 1:25-cv-00339, 3/31/26.
#DOGE #Data #Access #Laws #Sufts #Combat #Workplace