Supreme Court Rules DOGE Can Access Social Security Data for Enhanced Services

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), allowing its members to access Social Security Administration data. This decision came after the Court lifted an injunction imposed by a federal judge in Maryland, despite objections from the three liberal justices.

The unsigned order noted that DOGE members were entitled to access necessary agency records for their work. The lawsuit challenging DOGE’s access to this information was brought forth by the progressive group Democracy Forward, representing multiple unions, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the American Federation of Teachers, alongside the Alliance for Retired Americans.

The groups expressed concern, stating that the ruling poses risks to Americans’ private data, labeling it a “sad day for our democracy.” In contrast, the White House commended the ruling.

White House spokesperson Liz Huston called it a significant victory for the rule of law, emphasizing the need for government modernization and combating waste, fraud, and abuse. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissenting, criticized the urgency of the government’s request, arguing that it reflected a desire to bypass the normal litigation process.

DOGE, initially established by billionaire Elon Musk, aims to update systems within the agency and has requested access to sensitive data, including Social Security numbers and medical records. The lawsuit claims that such access violates the Privacy Act and regulations aimed at protecting personal information.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander previously determined that the agency had no legitimate need for the specific data. Following her ruling, the 4th U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Hollander, prompting the administration to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also issued another order shielding DOGE from freedom of information requests while litigation continues, igniting further disagreement from the liberal justices.

The Justice Department has yet to comment on this latest development.