Photo credit: arstechnica.com
A recent ruling from a US appeals court has determined that the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) must provide access to personal data held by them to the new Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE. This decision overturns a previous order made by a lower court.
The US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded in its decision that the government has likely demonstrated it could succeed with its appeal. In a closely contested 2-1 ruling, the judges favored the Trump administration’s request to pause the earlier ruling while the appeal is processed.
Judge Steven Agee, appointed by George W. Bush, emphasized in the court’s opinion that the government experiences unique and irreparable harm when it fails to execute the directives issued by its elected officials. He noted that judicial interference in agency operations undermines the Executive Branch’s authority to enforce federal laws.
Judge Agee was supported by Judge Julius Richardson, another Trump appointee, in granting the motion to stay the lower court’s ruling. Meanwhile, Judge Robert King, appointed by Bill Clinton, dissented, arguing against the decision.
Dissenting Opinion
In a subsequent close 8-7 vote, the appellate court rejected King’s request for an en banc hearing, meaning that the full court would not review the case. In his dissent, Judge King remarked on the critical nature of the issues at hand, stating:
“Given the exceptional importance of this matter, I sought initial en banc consideration of the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s award of preliminary injunctive relief—an injunction that restricts the defendant federal agencies and officials from sharing sensitive personal information of millions of individuals with affiliates of DOGE. Unfortunately, my request has been denied by an 8-7 vote, and the panel majority has instead granted the government’s stay on a 2-1 vote. I strongly dissent from both decisions.”
The implications of this ruling are significant, as it concerns the handling of highly sensitive personal data, such as Social Security numbers, income details, federal tax records, healthcare history, and more. These data points have historically been protected under the Privacy Act of 1974, raising concerns about the government’s ability to safeguard such information. Critics argue that the defendants began sharing this sensitive information with DOGE affiliates without proving that there was a legitimate need for access.
This latest decision by the appeals court reverses a prior ruling by US District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland. The plaintiffs challenging this move include several labor unions, such as the American Federation of Teachers and the National Federation of Federal Employees, as well as multiple individual plaintiffs, including military veterans.
Source
arstechnica.com