DOGE Data Access Lawsuit Shifts to Fight Over Employment Status

A lawsuit over Department of Government Efficiency workers getting access to data at several federal agencies will hinge on whether DOGE agents were employees of those agencies, a district court judge declared.

The AFL-CIO adequately proved that the way the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services granted DOGE-affiliated workers access to sensitive data was “inconsistent” with federal privacy laws but there remains substantial questions about whether the workers are employed by the agencies themselves, Judge John D. Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled.

“Here, real disputes over facts foundational to plaintiffs’ APA claims—including whether the Agencies altered their data access policies for DOGE affiliates, and whether DOGE structured those affiliates’ employment relationships such that they were not employees of the Agencies persist,” he said in his opinion.

A group of unions and non-profits filed a lawsuit early last year over DOGE’s efforts to tap into sensitive data systems at the DOL, HHS, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The effort was being carried out without legal authority and in violation of the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, they argued.

Bates previously denied two separate requests for a emergency relief. On Tuesday he denied both sides’ motions for summary judgment.

The unions’ arguments largely rest on whether the DOGE affiliates were direct hires of the agency with a legitimate need to access its systems, the judge said.

The government argued that the affiliates are employed by the US Digital Service and detailed to specific agencies to carry out the administration’s interests of rooting out fraud and waste. While Bates said this structure was unlikely to violate the Privacy Act, he couldn’t be sure because HHS and DOL refused to answer questions about the number of DOGE-affiliated workers currently employed there.

“Beyond mid-March 2025, the Court has little knowledge of DOGE’s activities at HHS and DOL,” Bates said. “HHS represents that its DOGE effort is ongoing, while DOL has averred that as of fall 2025, no DOGE affiliates remain at the agency.”

In the opinion, the judge said he would compel the agencies to divulge further information.

Access to Sensitive Information

Tuesday’s opinion shed light on the data DOGE members accessed and the hurried process to allow them access.

The DOL granted them access to its financial management system containing employee social security numbers and contractor information. The HHS granted DOGE affiliates access to “highly sensitive information” about Medicare patients, including names, social security numbers, and clinical information, which falls outside the purpose of the DOGE inquiry laid out in President Donald Trump’s executive orders, Bates said.

The reasons provided by the administration for the scope and timing of the DOGE inquiries are “incompatible” with the available evidence, according to the opinion.

Bates shot down the union’s motion for summary judgment, saying it is possible that the DOGE affiliates were tasked with performing software modernization.

Still up for debate is the agencies’ assertion that they were simply following executive orders, rather than choosing to change their own policies.

“A reasonable jury could credit the agencies’ evidence that the arrival of DOGE did not herald a change in their data access policies, only the application of existing policies to new circumstances,” Bates said, concluding that the union failed to establish that the departments violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which can only be used to challenge final agency decisions.

The plaintiffs were represented by the Democracy Forward Foundation and Relman Colfax PLLC. Attorneys from the Justice Department represented the government.

The case is AFL-CIO v. DOL, D.D.C., No. 1:25-cv-00339, 3/31/26.