A federal judge in Baltimore issued a preliminary injunction Thursday restricting the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to Social Security data.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, an Obama appointee, said DOGE-affiliated staffers must purge any of the non-anonymized Social Security data that they have received since Jan. 20. They are also barred from making any changes to the computer code or software used by the Social Security Administration, must remove any software or code they might have already installed, and are forbidden from disclosing any of that code to others.
The injunction does allow DOGE staffers to access data that’s been redacted or stripped of anything personally identifiable, if they undergo training and background checks.
‘The objective to address fraud, waste, mismanagement, and bloat is laudable, and one that the American public presumably applauds and supports,’ Hollander wrote in the ruling issued late Thursday night. ‘Indeed, the taxpayers have every right to expect their government to make sure that their hard earned money is not squandered.’
But that’s not the issue, Hollander said — the issue is with how DOGE, led by billionaire Elon Musk, wants to do the work.
‘For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records. This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation,’ the judge wrote.
The case was brought by a group of labor unions and retirees who allege DOGE’s recent actions violate privacy laws and present massive information security risks.
During a federal court hearing Tuesday in Baltimore, Hollander repeatedly asked the government’s attorneys why DOGE needs ‘seemingly unfettered access’ to the agency’s troves of sensitive personal information to uncover Social Security fraud.
‘What is it we’re doing that needs all of that information?’ Hollander said, questioning whether most of the data could be anonymized.
Attorneys for the Trump administration said changing the process would slow down their efforts.
‘While anonymization is possible, it is extremely burdensome,’ Justice Department attorney Bradley Humphreys told the court. He argued the DOGE access doesn’t deviate significantly from normal practices inside the agency, where employees and auditors are routinely allowed to search its databases.
But attorneys for the plaintiffs called it ‘a sea change’ in terms of how the agency handles sensitive information.
Skye Perryman, President and CEO of the legal services group Democracy Forward, which is behind the lawsuit, said the ruling has brought ‘significant relief for the millions of people who depend on the Social Security Administration to safeguard their most personal and sensitive information.’
Hollander made clear that her order didn’t apply to SSA workers who aren’t affiliated with DOGE, so they can still access any data they use in the course of ordinary work. But DOGE staffers who want access to the anonymized data must first undergo the typical training and background checks required of other Social Security Administration staffers, she said.
Hollander, 75, is the latest judge to consider a DOGE-related case. Many of her inquiries Tuesday focused on whether the Social Security case differs significantly from another Maryland case challenging DOGE’s access to data at three other agencies: the Education Department, the Treasury Department and the Office of Personnel Management. In that case, an appeals court recently blocked a preliminary injunction and cleared the way for DOGE to once again access people’s private data.
Hollander’s injunction could also be appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with the Trump administration in other cases, including allowing DOGE access to the U.S. Agency for International Development and letting executive orders against diversity, equity and inclusion move forward.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
