Musk, DOGE Will Face Class Action Claims in USAID Suit (Correct)

US Agency for International Development employees who will lose their jobs when the agency shuts down may pursue their claims against Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency as a class action, a federal court said.

After the US Supreme Court curbed the use of universal injunctions, advocates for federal workers subject to mass layoffs are turning to the use of class actions.

The Trump Administration tasked Musk and DOGE with cutting the federal budget. As part of their mandate, they sought to merge USAID with the US State Department and terminate the 5,000 to 10,000 USAID employees. To that end, on March 28, DOGE Team Lead Jeremy Lewin sent an email notifying the employees that they would receive reduction-in-force notices, requiring separation by either July 1 or Sept. 2.

DOGE’s activities have been legally challenged at almost every turn. But the US Supreme Court ruled in June that DOGE can have access to Social Security data. Musk left DOGE in May.

The plaintiffs here claimed that DOGE’s actions violated the appointments clause and the separation of powers by subverting the powers of Congress. They were granted a preliminary injunction on March 18 and the defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied Aug. 13—only claims against President Trump were dismissed.

At the time of the proposed RIF, USAID had personnel classifications that included civil service employees, foreign service employees, foreign service limited and national employees, and personal services contractors. They also had cooperating country and third-country national personal service employees, who weren’t US citizens and worked for USAID in foreign countries. But Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the US District Court for the District of Maryland pared from the class foreign nationals working abroad, saying that they don’t possess any rights under the US Constitution.

The class certified by Chuang was all USAID employees who were US citizens or working in the US between Jan. 27 and the present. It specifically excluded administrators and deputy administrators.

Under his modifications, Chuang said that the class isn’t overbroad. He added that the class is sufficiently large and the plaintiffs have common issues of law and fact.

The common issues for the appointments clause claim are whether Musk made the initial decision to dismantle USAID and whether that decision should have been made by a duly appointed US officer. They also include whether Musk was the de facto DOGE administrator, and whether Musk’s position was “continuing” for appointment clause purposes. For the separation of powers claim, the common issues are whether the defendants’ actions eliminated USAID as an independent agency, and whether that elimination violated separation of powers, Chuang said.

The plaintiffs’ claims are also typical of the rest of the class, and the plaintiffs will adequately represent the class, Chuang said. He added that a single injunction or declaratory judgment will provide relief for the entire class.

State Democracy Defenders Action, Marziani, Stevens & Gonzalez PLLC, and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP represent the plaintiff. The US Department of Justice represents the defendants.

The case is Does v. Musk, 2025 BL 291150, D. Md., No. 25-0462-TDC, 8/18/25.