Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency won a court ruling on Tuesday that might not leave them celebrating for long.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — the same judge who presided over Donald Trump’s ill-fated federal election interference case — declined to issue a temporary restraining order against Musk and DOGE.
But she credited the underlying claim from the states that brought the lawsuit in a way that suggests they could ultimately prevail — or at least, they could prevail in front of her at the trial court level (saying nothing of what might happen on any appeal).
The states argued that Musk’s actions have violated the Constitution’s appointments clause because he’s not a Senate-confirmed officer and that Musk and DOGE lack statutory authority for their actions, including in gaining access to “sensitive data, information, systems, and technological and financial infrastructure across the federal government.”
At issue in Chutkan’s ruling was the states’ request for a temporary restraining order to block Musk and DOGE from “(1) accessing, copying, or transferring any data systems in the Office of Personnel Management, and the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, and Commerce; and (2) terminating or otherwise placing on leave any officers or employees within those same agencies.”
But Chutkan said in her ruling that she couldn’t grant relief because the claimed harm was too legally speculative at this point. “Plaintiffs’ declarations are replete with attestations that if Musk and DOGE Defendants cancel, pause, or significantly reduce federal funding or eliminate federal-state contracts, Plaintiff States will suffer extreme financial and programmatic harm,” the Obama appointee wrote. And she noted that DOGE’s “unpredictable actions have resulted in considerable uncertainty and confusion for Plaintiffs and many of their agencies and residents.” But she said the possibility that the defendants “may” take actions that irreparably harm the plaintiffs isn’t enough for a restraining order.
Though she stopped short of issuing the restraining order, Chutkan wrote that she thought the plaintiffs have raised a “colorable Appointments Clause claim with serious implications,” noting that Musk hasn’t been nominated by Trump or confirmed by the Senate, which is required for officers who exercise significant governmental authority.
“Musk has rapidly taken steps to fundamentally reshape the Executive Branch,” Chutkan wrote. Yet she also noted that “even a strong merits argument cannot secure a temporary restraining order at this juncture.” The key phrase there being “at this juncture.” So while the plaintiffs failed to win temporary relief, they might succeed later in this litigation and secure a more lasting victory against what Chutkan acknowledged is the billionaire’s bid to fundamentally reshape the government. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
