A federal court on Tuesday declined to block Elon Musk and and President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency from accessing data systems at seven government agencies and firing or placing on leave their employees—but she also signaled that the Democratic state attorneys general challenging the billionaire and DOGE raise legitimate concerns in the case.
Led by New Mexico's attorney general, Raúl Torrez, 14 states
sued Musk, DOGE, and Trump in Washington, D.C. last week. They asked District Judge Tanya Chutkan for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to protect data and workers at the Office of Personnel Management as well as the departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Labor, and Transportation.
Chutkan, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama,
wrote in a 10-page order on Tuesday that "based on the parties' briefing, oral argument, and the current record, the court finds that plaintiffs have not carried their burden of showing that they will suffer imminent, irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order."
The New York Timesreported Tuesday that "while several judges have already considered more limited restraining orders halting Musk team operations within individual agencies, the case before Judge Chutkan is unique in its focus on the Constitution's appointments clause, which specifies which officials can be appointed by the executive branch without the consent of the Senate. The states argued in their lawsuit that Mr. Trump had violated the clause by granting broad powers to Mr. Musk."
Chutkan explained in her order that "plaintiffs raise a colorable appointments clause claim with serious implications. Musk has not been nominated by the president nor confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as constitutionally required for officers who exercise 'significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States' But even a strong merits argument cannot secure a temporary restraining order at this juncture."
"Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight," she continued. "In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority. Accordingly, it cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as plaintiffs request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these plaintiffs. The current record does not meet that standard."
Chutkan also called out defendants' attorneys for a notice and related
declaration from the White House, which generated widespread confusion by stating that Musk "is a senior adviser to the president" and "is not the U.S. DOGE service administrator."
As the judge pointed out in a footnote on Tuesday, the lawyers claim that "neither of the president's executive orders regarding 'DOGE' contemplate—much less furnish—... authority" to "order personnel actions at any of the agencies" specified.
She also noted that "based on the executive orders' plain text, 'new career appointment hiring decisions' at each federal agency 'shall be made in consultation with the agency's DOGE team lead' and agencies 'shall not fill any vacancies for career appointments that the DOGE team lead assesses should not be filled, unless the agency need determines the positions should be filled.'"
The judge stressed in her order that "at a minimum, this language 'contemplates' DOGE's authority over personnel actions. Defense counsel is reminded of their duty to make truthful representations to the court."
Responding to Chutkan's decision in a statement, Torrez
said that "while we are disappointed that the court declined to issue a temporary restraining order, we remain committed to putting an end to Elon Musk's unlawful power grab."
"Every day that he is allowed to operate without a congressional mandate and with little apparent supervision, Musk is destabilizing our government and disrupting critical funding for education, public health, and national security," he added. "His move-fast-and-break-things mentality is not only reckless, but also unconstitutional, and we are prepared to pursue this case for as long as it takes to bring this chaos to an end."
