A Federal judge late Tuesday denied a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from sniffing around data systems at seven Federal agencies.
Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the plaintiffs in the case – a coalition of 14 state attorneys general – raised valid concerns about Musk’s and DOGE’s authority.
However, she decided not to grant the temporary restraining order they requested, citing a lack of sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiffs would suffer imminent and irreparable harm from Musk’s and DOGE’s actions.
In their lawsuit filed on Feb. 13, the attorneys general sought were a TRO to block DOGE from firing employees or accessing data from the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Commerce, and the Office of Personnel Management.
To win a TRO the plaintiffs needed to establish “that [they’re] likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [they’re] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest,” the judge said.
The plaintiffs presented several media reports outlining DOGE’s recent actions or potential future actions as evidence of the alleged harm. However, similar to her stance during a second hearing on Feb. 17, Chutkan explained that the court cannot base its decisions on media reports.
“Plaintiffs ask the court to take judicial notice of widespread media reports that DOGE has taken or will soon take certain actions, such as mass terminations. But these reports cannot substitute for specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint that clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result,” the ruling reads.
During a Feb. 14 hearing in the case, the judge asked plaintiffs to significantly narrow the scope of their request, calling it “prophylactic.”
Although Chutkan declined to grant the TRO, she acknowledged that the plaintiffs raised a legitimate question about Musk’s and DOGE’s authority.
In their lawsuit, the states cited the Appointments Clause, which mandates Congress must create an office before the President appoints someone to lead it, and that the Senate must confirm the nominee. They argued these safeguards were violated by the power given to Musk and his DOGE team by President Trump.
“Even Defendants concede there is no apparent source of legal authority granting [DOGE] the power’ to takes some of the actions challenged here,” the ruling reads.
The White House has argued that DOGE operates within the executive branch, and Musk, classified as a “special government employee,” is not part of the DOGE team but acts as an advisor to the president. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt has also repeatedly stated that Musk is “complying with all applicable Federal laws.”
Chutkan also ordered both parties to meet and discuss next steps. If the plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction, they must file a proposed briefing schedule and state their positions on consolidating the merits with the injunction briefing by 5 p.m. Feb. 19.
