- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
US District Court To Rule On Lawsuit Aiming To Curtail Elon Musk’s DOGE

US District Court To Rule On Lawsuit Aiming To Curtail Elon Musk’s DOGE
Over 20 cases have been filed in federal courts, wherein judgments are forthcoming
US District Court is expecting to shortly rule in a lawsuit aiming to protect information systems at major government agencies from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team.
DOGE was tasked by President Donald Trump with overhauling the government.
District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., heard arguments on the President’s Day holiday when federal courts are closed.
It was considered an emergency request by 13 Democratic state attorneys general who sought to block Musk and DOGE from accessing government systems and firing employees at seven agencies.
The states complained that their ability to carry out educational and other programs was at risk. They accused Musk's team of using data from agency systems to dismantle initiatives and direct mass firings.
The judge stated, “What I'm hearing is troubling, but I must have a record and findings of fact before I issue something.”
Doubting that the states met the legal standard for imminent harm, she held, "It's like a prophylactic Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), and that's not allowed.” However, if they eventually prevailed, she could order programs to be restored, she added
The state attorneys general sought to bar DOGE from accessing information systems at the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Commerce, and the Office of Personnel Management.
Since last month, DOGE swept through federal agencies slashing thousands of jobs and dismantling federal programs since Trump became president.
Trump put Musk in charge of rooting out wasteful spending as part of his dramatic systems overhaul.
The attorneys general pleaded with the judge to prevent Musk and DOGE from firing government employees or sending them on leave.
When a Department of Justice (DoJ) attorney told Judge Chutkan he was unable to confirm mass government layoffs, she retorted, "The firing of thousands of federal employees is not a small or common thing. You haven't been able to confirm that?"
The attorney said he would shortly update the court with a letter.
The states said that Musk was bestowed with powers that could be exercised only by a government official, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution of the United States. They alleged that Congress did not authorize DOGE.
Meanwhile, over 20 lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts challenging Musk's authority, leading to differing results.
Recently, District Judge Jeannette Vargas in New York extended a temporary block on DOGE, preventing Musk's team from accessing the treasury systems responsible for trillions of dollars of payments.
However, District Judge John Bates in Washington declined a request by unions and nonprofits to temporarily block Musk's team from accessing records at the government departments.