Judge rules DOGE can access personal data despite invasion of privacy claims

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Courthouse News Service

June 27, 2025


(CN) — A federal judge denied a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, from accessing personal information held by the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

U.S. District Judge John Bates wrote in a 28-page opinion that the plaintiffs, a coalition of unions and nonprofits, have not proven that access to members’ medical or financial records by DOGE employees would cause irreparable harm.

Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, found that the plaintiffs’ complaint fell short of the high bar set for litigants seeking a preliminary injunction. While DOGE’s access to the information presents a possible invasion of privacy, the judge wrote, the unions and nonprofits offer no evidence that the information is likely to be misused or leaked.

“This conclusion does not mean the harm the members face is insubstantial or that the court harbors no concerns that DOGE affiliates have their hands on some of the most personal information individuals entrust to the government,” Bates writes. “To the contrary, the court’s concerns are as grave as ever, and it stands ready to remedy plaintiffs’ harm should they ultimately succeed on the merits.”

Read more: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-doge-can-access-personal-data-despite-invasion-of-privacy-claims/

---

Link to RULING (PDF) - https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/judge-bates-oks-doge-labor-hhs-sensitive-data-access.pdf

REFERENCE - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143389757

I think there were a couple other suits related to DOGE access.

[happy feet]

1. The sound of democracy dying...

brick by brick, cynderblock by cynderblock, wall by wall....

[Bayard]

2. The court stands ready to remedy plaintiffs' harm,

AFTER all your personal info is out there.

Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

[niyad]

3. bates was appointed by chimpy.

[displacedvermoter]

6. There was no difference between Bush and Gore, right?

[lonely bird]

4. Question?

Are these judges naive, stupid or simply don’t give a damn?

[BumRushDaShow]

5. This was one of the "early" cases filed (back in February)

where it was primarily "organizations" or "states" (or other local government entities) filing on behalf of employees or residents.

And it basically boiled down to judges telling them that they could not "show harm" to those organizations or states themselves (even if it "harmed" their members or residents).

So the later cases have usually included the organizations and/or states, etc., PLUS some "individual" (or group of people) who then could argue that they (those individuals) were being "harmed".

Those that did it that way have since mostly been successful.

[live love laugh]

7. Ain't that a bitch ....

“… Bates writes. “To the contrary, the court’s concerns are as grave as ever, and it stands ready to remedy plaintiffs’ harm should they ultimately succeed on the merits.”

I can’t anymore ….

[634-5789]

8. Freeze your credit bureau accounts. There's no way in Hell they can see what your credit is if you do that.

[Irish_Dem]

9. Courts turning over everything to Hitler Trump and Musk.

We are so screwed.

[dlk]

11. This is a data gathering project to support Palantir

Why do they require our data? It’s none of their business.

[Lonestarblue]

12. So good of this judge to stand ready to remedy the harm after it's done!

Where were the questions this judge should gave been asking about why the DOGE employees needed to know our most private data. The amorphous excuse given is for “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” As anyone who knows only a smidgen about technology knows, a system can be modernized and made more efficient with no need to have access to my personal name, bank account number, email, address, and Social Security number. Where is the question of how DOGE will specifically use this information and whether that use violates the Privacy Act?

This judge, wrongly in my view, assumed that DOGE has good intentions and can have access to whatever they want. The DOGE employees have an agenda totally unrelated to data privacy. If they use the information to illegally withdraw Social Security deposits from my bank account, for example, and refuse to return it because they’ve decided that I’m actually dead (as has happened to others already), then I’m welcome to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to help me retrieve my money and this judge will be happy to hear the case. Or if DOGE gives my information to outside vendors to modernize technology, they have a contract but their employees have unnecessary access to data that we certainly did not give them. We are already bombarded with spam and data hacks where our email and account passwords get stolen. Giving DOGE access to even more private data like bank names and account numbers is just opening the door to more identify theft.