On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a request from 14 Democratic state attorneys general to immediately impose broad restrictions on Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This group of states, led by New Mexico, argues that Musk’s role in overseeing DOGE is unconstitutional, pointing out that he was never confirmed by the Senate. They sought to block DOGE’s access to seven federal agencies, citing concerns over its unchecked power and lack of legislative oversight.
Judge Chutkan rejected the request, stating that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any immediate or irreparable harm that would warrant a temporary restraining order (TRO) at this stage of the case. While acknowledging concerns about Musk’s influence over the government, Chutkan emphasized that the plaintiffs had not met the standard for an injunction. She also noted that, despite the valid questions raised about Musk’s authority, the evidence at hand didn’t justify such a wide-reaching legal action. The judge’s ruling focused on the need for clear and undeniable proof of harm before the court could intervene.
In a footnote, Chutkan did cast doubt on some of the Justice Department’s claims regarding the extent of DOGE’s powers, particularly in personnel-related matters, reminding defense counsel of their duty to present truthful information to the court.
Musk’s efforts through DOGE have drawn attention since former President Trump’s administration, with Musk moving swiftly to install personnel within federal agencies in order to cut government spending by trillions. This has led to legal challenges from state attorneys general concerned about the restructuring of the federal bureaucracy.
Chutkan’s involvement in this case places her at the center of yet another legal battle related to Trump, following her previous role in overseeing the now-dismissed Jan. 6 criminal case against the former president.
The Democratic-led states contend that Musk’s efforts go far beyond the authority granted under his executive order. They argue that DOGE is overstepping its bounds, particularly by gaining access to confidential data at agencies like the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Energy. However, the Justice Department, defending DOGE, insists that there is clear documentation showing the legality of the department’s actions, with no evidence that Musk is personally directing decisions.
Despite concerns from the plaintiffs, Judge Chutkan expressed doubt about the legal arguments being made, challenging the scope of their requests and ultimately deciding that the case did not warrant immediate action. This ruling comes amid growing scrutiny of the new government efficiency initiative, which continues to spark legal and political controversy.