Judge Declines to Block DOGE Access to Labor, Health, CFPB Data

A coalition of unions, nonprofits, and a think tank again failed to convince a federal judge to temporarily halt the Department of Government Efficiency from moving forward with plans to access computer systems and data at a trio of federal agencies.

The group didn’t show a substantial likelihood that the US DOGE Service isn’t an agency under the Economy Act of 1932, Judge John D. Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Friday.

If USDS is an agency, then its members can be detailed to other agencies consistent with that law, he wrote.

“This is a close question, but plaintiffs have not, at this time, sustained their burden that they are likely to succeed on its merits,” Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in denying a renewed motion for a temporary restraining order.

Bates acknowledged that briefing on the issue was limited, and invited further analysis on a motion for preliminary injunction.

He also found no likelihood of success on the group’s Administrative Procedure Act and Privacy Act claims, some of which also turned on whether the USDS members are agency employees.

Last week, he declined to issue a TRO on standing grounds, and the plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint.

The coalition sued on Feb. 5 to block DOGE from entering into data systems at the US Department of Labor, and later added the Department of Health and Human Services and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to the lawsuit.

The complaint was filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, Communications Workers of America, American Federation of Teachers, the Economic Policy Institute, the Virginia Poverty Law Center, and Economic Action Maryland.

The CWA is affiliated with the Washington-Baltimore News Guild, which represents employees of Bloomberg Law.

The case is AFL-CIO v. DOL, D.D.C., No. 1:25-cv-00339, TRO denied 2/14/25.