The Supreme Court has issued a temporary order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access private data maintained by the Social Security Administration.
This includes Social Security numbers, medical histories, mental health evaluations, and family court records.
The unsigned order from the nation’s highest court granted a request from the Trump administration, effectively overturning lower court decisions that had limited DOGE’s reach.
NPR reported that the case is now being returned to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond for further deliberation on the legal merits.
The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision, with the conservative majority voting to approve temporary access for DOGE. The three liberal justices dissented, asserting they would have denied access while the legal battle continued through the appeals process.
The case began at the outset of President Donald Trump’s second term, when he directed DOGE to overhaul outdated federal software and improve government operational efficiency.
The agency, which was previously led by Elon Musk, was given the task of streamlining federal technology systems, per the Conservative Brief.
Michelle King, the acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration at the time, declined to provide DOGE with access to sensitive records. Her refusal led to her resignation. She was replaced by Leland Dudek, who later authorized what some have called unrestricted DOGE access to the SSA’s databases.
The Friday ruling marks a notable win for constitutionalists in recent Supreme Court activity. Earlier in the same week, the Court ruled unanimously against Mexico’s effort to sue American firearm manufacturers. In another case, the Court sided with a heterosexual woman who claimed she had been discriminated against at work.
In another ruling Friday, the Supreme Court declined to hear two challenges to lawsuits brought by states and municipalities against oil companies. The lawsuits seek financial reparations for climate change-related damages allegedly caused by fossil fuel emissions.
Oil-producing states and industry coalitions argue that these legal actions are being used to push anti-fossil fuel agendas. If successful, the suits could cost companies tens of billions of dollars, expenses likely to be passed along to consumers.
O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, stated that such lawsuits could harm shoppers. “Consumers are not helped by these cases,” Skinner said, arguing they are designed to remove products and redirect funds to political interests.
Skinner expressed hope that the defendants in these lawsuits would continue to contest them, asserting they have often succeeded in later legal stages. He emphasized the importance of continued legal resistance to avoid consumer harm.
Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute warned that letting the lawsuits proceed unchecked could lead to environmental activists using courts to become unofficial energy regulators. He urged the Court to eventually hear such cases in order to uphold constitutional standards.
The Court also recently allowed the Trump administration to end temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. That decision reversed lower court rulings that had blocked the policy.
The high court’s order lifted a ruling from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who had stopped the administration from revoking humanitarian parole granted by former President Joe Biden. The reversal opens the door to deportations while the matter returns to the lower courts.
Humanitarian parole permits noncitizens to reside and work in the United States for pressing humanitarian or public interest reasons. The Biden administration had employed the measure as part of a broader immigration management policy along the southern border.
