Early Block on DOGE Access to Data Vacated by Appeals Court (1)

The Treasury Department and two other federal agencies got a green light from a divided Fourth Circuit panel to share sensitive personal data with the Department of Government Efficiency while a legal challenge plays out.

A Tuesday ruling vacated a preliminary injunction that blocked DOGE access to some government-held data, with the panel holding that a lower court abused its discretion by granting the plaintiffs the injunction because they failed to show that they are likely to prevail on their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Privacy Act, Judge Julius N. Richardson said for a split panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The case is one of many growing from the bevy of executive orders President Donald Trump signed on his first day in office, Jan. 20, 2025. At issue was an EO intended to modernize technology used by the federal government. It established the Department of Government Efficiency, which was tasked with improving the inter-operability between agency networks and systems.

The US Department of Education, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Department of Treasury created DOGE teams and gave DOGE access to their systems. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs—five professional organizations and six individuals—brought this suit, alleging that sharing personal information, which included Social Security numbers, federal tax records, physical and mental health histories, driver’s license information, and bank account numbers, violated the Privacy Act and the APA.

The Fourth Circuit previously granted a stay of the preliminary injunction.

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., required the plaintiffs to show that they were likely to succeed on the merits; that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; that the balance of equities tipped in their favor; and that the injunction is in the public interest. But they failed at step one, Richardson said.

The plaintiffs aren’t likely to win on the merits of their claims because they “seemingly lack standing,” Richardson said. The plaintiffs said that their Privacy Act claim was similar to the tort of intrusion on seclusion, but that tort is understood to guard against the feeling of unease when and where one should ideally be at peace, Richardson said. Granting DOGE employees access to sensitive data isn’t the same thing.

“Unauthorized knowledge of sensitive information is instead more closely shielded by other privacy torts, such as public disclosure of private information, which finds its roots in defamation—unlike intrusion upon seclusion, which finds its roots in trespass,” Richardson said.

The plaintiffs’ APA claim failed because it wasn’t likely that was agency action and there’s no precedent demonstrating how the APA intersects with the Privacy Act, Richardson said. Also the Privacy Act allows records to be shared intra-agency, and a consultant tasked with improving the efficiency and operation of the government likely needs broad access to the information held by the agencies to properly do its job, he said.

Judge G. Steven Agee joined the opinion.

Judge Robert B. King dissented, arguing that the lower court properly applied the Winter test and the majority established a new, higher standard.

Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Murphy Anderson PLLC, and Protect Democracy Project represented the plaintiffs. The US Deparment of Justice represented the government.

The case is Am. Fed. of Teachers v. Bessent, 4th Cir., No. 25-1282, 8/12/25.