Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan, a U.S. District Judge, shut down a Democrat AG-led effort to restrain the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from both accessing federal data about federal employees or firing reams of federal employees, ruling that the plaintiffs hadn’t demonstrated evidence of “irreparable harm” by DOGE’s access in their suit.
As background, the suit to which Judge Chutkan delivered a massive blow was brought by a coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general. They, in the suit, demanded that the judiciary limit DOGE’s access to federal data about the federal government’s employees, seen as something that will aid it in firing thousands upon thousands of those employees.
The leader of the suit was New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, whose office released a press release saying, “Today, Attorney General Raúl Torrez, along with Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and 11 other states, announced the filing of a lawsuit challenging the unlawful delegation of executive power to Elon Musk. The lawsuit argues that President Trump has violated the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution by creating a new federal Department without Congressional approval and by granting Musk sweeping powers over the entire federal government without seeking the advice and consent of the Senate.”
In a statement quoted by the press release, NM AG Torrez said, “Empowering an unelected billionaire to access Americans’ private data, slash funding for federal student aid, stop payments to American farmers and dismantle protections for working families is not a sign of President Trump’s strength, but his weakness.”
Continuing, Torrez claimed that Trump needs the approval of Congress in his attempt to clear our the executive branch, saying, “Despite his claim to be operating under a mandate from the American people, the President seems afraid to get Congressional approval for his ‘move fast and break things’ approach to the Presidency.”
In the case itself, the plaintiffs argued that Musk being the head of DOGE represents an “unlawful delegation of executive power.” They further claimed, in the Torrez-led lawsuit, “There is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual.”
Judge Chutkan, denying their demands for a temporary restraining order, noted that though DOGE is “unelected,” the plaintiffs hadn’t demonstrated what they needed to in order to get the TRO. She said, “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.”
"*" indicates required fields
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.”
She further noted, summarizing those twin points, that though she finds DOGE “troubling,” she can’t grant a TRO without having the proper demonstrations of fact in front of her. She said, “The things I’m hearing are troubling indeed, but I have to have a record and findings of fact before I issue something.”
Watch Trump comment on wasteful spending discovered by DOGE here: