Judge denies request to temporarily block DOGE's mass firings, access to data

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Tue Feb 18, 2025, 06:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: ABC News

February 18, 2025, 4:30 PM


A federal judge in Washington on Tuesday denied an urgent request to block Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency from firing employees or accessing sensitive records from a half a dozen government agencies.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan -- who previously oversaw Trump's criminal election interference case -- said the states didn't show that immediate irreparable harm would result, noting that the court cannot act based 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," Judge Chutkan wrote.

Fourteen state attorneys general were seeking a temporary restraining order that would block DOGE from firing employees or accessing data from the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Commerce, and Office of Personnel Management as part of President Donald Trump's campaign promise to slash the federal government.

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hear-arguments-musks-authority-lawsuits-administration-pile/story?id=118895817

---

Link to DECISION (PDF) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277463/gov.uscourts.dcd.277463.29.0.pdf

[angrychair]

1. Even judges are paid off or they are running scared now

Literally no one has a spine in government. It's not a media report. It's actually happening.

Screw her and anyone else not willing to hold these assholes accountable.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. She explained the issue in her questioning yesterday

I.e., it's what they are arguing - and is unfortunately considered, in court-ese, as being "premature", even though we know PEOPLE in those states are being "harmed" ( let alone the nation). But they have to show how the STATE is (like a "person" might be) imminently "harmed".

This then sort of tells you how such a suit would need to be filed - i.e., with "individuals" doing it (where they can obviously be backed by giganto law firms).

[slightlv]

11. Right... so there's no recourse until

AFTER a hacker has gotten my information from these databases and used it illegally. And just how much attention will that get to remedying the situation? Ever hear of shutting the barn door after the horses have escaped?

PTB better wake up and start taking proactive steps because nothing stops trump and musk. They're two bulls in a china shop and we and our country are the china shop. trump is acting like an emperor, and musk is acting like a god-king. Someone has to be the first to pull them back. To those state AGs who tried to get this across to Chutkin, I applaud their stance and commiserate with them. But I guess the PTB have to be above the AG paygrade.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. See this post below

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3398990

[angrychair]

21. That's the part that doesn't make sense

It comes across as a no win situation. If I'm just John Doe by myself, I just got fired, me making that case by myself isn't going to help anyone else. Plus if it's just a single person, how are they supposed to fight the government that has unlimited lawyers and unlimited money to fight and the average individual doesn't. Laws are only meant to protect the rich. It's why it's a big deal when a individual or poor person wins because the system isn't meant to allow them to win.

[BumRushDaShow]

30. "me making that case by myself isn't going to help anyone else."

You are thinking too narrowly.

Based on your argument, a case like "(Oliver) Brown (, et al.) v. Board of Education (of Topeka, et al.)", where " (Oliver) Brown" was an INDIVIDUAL (among a group of other indiviuduals), would only apply to Mr. Brown and not the entire country to begin to break down the scourge of legal segregation in schools with the bullshit of "separate but equal".

Here is the Rev. Oliver Brown ( "lead plaintiff" )-



His lawyers were part of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which included someone who would become a future SCOTUS Justice - Thurgood Marshall -



This describes the OTHER cases that were running alongside (like you see the multiple suits going for the same issues, today) that were lumped together in the final ruling - https://www.nps.gov/brvb/learn/historyculture/fivecases.htm



If someone is arguing that the actions of "the government" or that a law (or laws) passed by them, is/are violating the state or federal Constitution, then that usually goes BEYOND the individual to show the possible "harm" to the populace.

This isn't like someone who was a defendant charged and convicted of burglary, who is arguing "harm" to themselves from the conviction associated with their specific actions.

[we can do it]

5. Not true with this judge, they need to make a case.

[Polybius]

29. She's a highly respected Obama appointee

I doubt she's "running scared," and she certainly isn't "paid off" either.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. No chance of an appeal?

[BumRushDaShow]

3. They can appeal

[FBaggins]

18. Not really

Just as the appelate court bounced Trump's appeal because TROs aren't normally appealable... the lack of a TRO being granted is even less appealable (they would essentially be requesting a writ from a higher court ordering her to change her ruling)...

... all this in context that the next two weeks will be spent actually arguing for a preliminary injunction to hold during the pendency of the actual case. Two weeks in which they might find better examples of actual harm that could convince her.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. I think this explains the strategy

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3398990

Will have to stay tuned to see how this pans out.

[moonshinegnomie]

6. i read the descision

basically she said they the AG's can't show extreme or imminent harm that cant be undone. she said that they might have to scramble to rehire any fired employees but it can be done.

[SunSeeker]

9. How can losing your most sensitive financial info to teenage Nazis be "undone"?

[slightlv]

12. Gods, SunSeeker, this is what I'm zeroed in on!

Having made two police reports for hacking and scamming already, I know some of what it takes to get things back to normal. It's a pain in the butt, IF it can be done. The first is just getting people to really listen to you. I'm old. I'm a woman. I'm a Crone. Getting them to not put me in a little box of their own choosing is hard enough. Trying to reestablish my identity? That would probably be the death of me... or at least, take that long to achieve.

ALL of our information... SS numbers, any tracking info, military history, etc... EVERY aspect of your life is going to be up for sale thanks to musks teenage hackers. I don't WANT to wait for the worst to happen before anyone will take us seriously. Preventing that should be job number 1.

[FBaggins]

19. The problem is that they can't demonstrate any of that is happening

We know that they've cutting a bunch of staff, pausing many programs, and trying to undo billions of dollars in spending that already went out (to some degree at least). We suspect that (since they need access to certain systems in order to do this) they are also extracting that information for their own (nongovernmental) purposes.

But that's just speculation. No court is going to pause governmental actions on a speculative "I just don't trust these guys" guess at what they might do.

[SunSeeker]

23. Even reading this private information is illegal.

Software engineers working for Musk seeking to gain access to tax return information have no right to hoover up taxpayer data and send that data back to any other part of the federal government and may be breaking the law if they are doing so," Wyden and Warren wrote in the Feb. 17 letter. 

The senators pointed to privacy regulations in the tax code that they said provide "strong legal protections" for taxpayer data, noting that violation of those laws can result in incarceration or other criminal penalties. They added that even if the DOGE employees are employed at the Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS, they may still be violating the law by accessing taxpayer data. 

There are serious statutory and regulatory restrictions on when employees outside the Treasury Department may gain access to tax return information," the letter said. 

It added, "To date, no information on DOGE employees or any others executing orders on Musk's behalf have revealed any clear, stated purpose as to why they need access to return information, whether they have followed all required laws to gain access to IRS systems, and what steps the IRS has taken to ensure that inspection of tax return is contained to authorized personnel and not disclosed to any unauthorized parties."

Protections for taxpayer data were increased in the 1970s after former President Nixon sought to use the IRS against his political opponents, according to New York University's Tax Law blog. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/musk-doge-trump-irs-taxpayer-data-idrs-wyden-warren-letter/

[FBaggins]

25. Except we don't know that's happening either

That isn't the only data in the Integrated Data Retrieval System. Requesting access to the system doesn't mean that they'll be reading individual returns. We might suspect that they are, but that isn't something a judge can help us with based on mere speculation.

[SunSeeker]

28. Yes we do. Miller has explictly said they're looking for "fraud," like "illegal aliens" claiming "child tax credits."

In an interview with Fox News, Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, said DOGE was seeking to find signs of tax fraud. 

"We are talking about performing a basic anti-fraud review to ensure that people are not engaging in large scale theft of federal taxpayer benefits," he said. "I mean, for example, we pay billions of dollars a year in child tax credit payments to illegal aliens, billions with a B. So these are systematic, programmatic reforms that we're talking about here."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/musk-doge-trump-irs-taxpayer-data-idrs-wyden-warren-letter/


So they have them admitting they have been and will be looking at individual tax returns.

What the fuck more could Chutkan want?

[FBaggins]

34. They don't have to look at individual returns in order to do that

Indeed - doing so would be prohibitively inefficient.

But they can perform all sorts of data mining without looking at individual returns. They could, as a relevant example, do a query of all returns with ITINs rather than SSNs that show child tax credits. That list could then be turned over to people who are allowed to look at individual returns.

What the fuck more could Chutkan want?

That begs the question, doesn't it? She's known to be immune to Trump's nonsense and clearly doesn't trust him - yet she hasn't seen something she can act on yet.

[SunSeeker]

35. OFFS, everything DOGE is doing is "prohibitively inefficient."

If you think they are looking at tax returns only to find fraud, I got a bridge to sell you.

I no longer have full confidence in Chutkan. Either the states' briefs were complete trash, which I doubt, or Chutkan is being ridiculously overcautious. As Trump has learned, working the refs can be quite productive for him.

[bluestarone]

45. Can i ask this question? Somebody is supplying something to these AG's. My question is could this judge

Subpoena WHOEVER the AG's are using as their evidence?

[FBaggins]

46. I'm not sure that someone is supplying information to the AGs

That is... some of these lawsuits were begun right after the inauguration and before they even knew how DOGE was constructed (I'm not sure that they know even now).

Regardless - it wouldn't be the judge's job to perform an investigation. That's on the plaintiffs. It's in their interest to provide whatever they have.

[bluestarone]

47. TY. This many AG's should KNOW what is needed for Christ sake.

They need to get what this judge needs to come to the RIGHT decision.

[Genevra]

7. shit shit shit shit

I hate it that she's right, MSM can be considered hearsay. I can't believe that that many AGs didn't get the facts compiled. That's a 1st year law student mistake. Or that they let it out the door without the facts.

They can appeal, but if they'd had it together there wouldn't have been a need for an appeal.

All I can say is I'm hoping it was an oversight because of the rush to put the suit together.

[in2herbs]

8. Here is the final paragraph of her order:

"For the reasons explained, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for
a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall meet
and confer regarding further proceedings. If Plaintiffs intend to move for a preliminary injunction,
the parties shall file a proposed briefing schedule, and state their positions on consolidating the
merits with the preliminary injunction briefing, by 5:00 PM on February 19, 2025."

She is providing plaintiffs (state AGs) with an alternative to an appeal.

Don't give up hope.

[bluestarone]

10. TY for this.

[elocs]

13. "Don't give up hope." It's hard to give up what is already gone. n/t

[in2herbs]

15. The state AGs may have been denied a TRO but they are pursuing an injunction, and this was

Chutkan's recommendation.

A video was just posted with AZ AG Kris Mayes being interviewed on behalf of the 22 AGs. They are proceeding on this avenue and intend to depose and interview people involved.

[angrychair]

22. Just a way to drag it out

People don't have time wait month and months for a court decision. They will just move on.
She only exists to protect the rich and the government. The law so rarely works for the little guy they literally make moves about it (example: Pelican Briefing)

[defacto7]

43. Thanks. The details are important.

Legal docs can be misleading to those of us who aren't law savvy.

[moniss]

16. Biggest line of BS from a judge

since "I Lean" Cannon.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. She is the opposite of Loose Cannon

and is trying to make sure the RW loons don't overturn her on appeal if she decides in our favor - but she needs to do it with the CORRECT type of legal halt.

[moniss]

27. However it is nonsensical to say there is no imminent harm apparent.

It is the equivalent of saying people can be left ion the desert without water legally because any idea that they would suffer harm is just "speculation".

[BumRushDaShow]

31. In this case, the "STATE" is NOT the same as an individual "person" - it's those unique "legal definitions"

THAT is the difference. If the AGs are arguing harm for "their state" (as an "entity" vs the people in the state), then that is where they have to show that what is happening is impacting "the state" - e.g., the budget or revenue they receive, etc. Or as another example, Medicaid is something that the states administer and if they can show how the data from systems that they feed to the feds, has been compromised by these actions, then that can help show "harm".

A clear example to show what seems to be going on here (in the legal world) would be this - EVERY SINGLE TIME, the IDIOT AG Ken Paxton of TX sues some other state for that other state's "laws", those cases are tossed because they cannot show that the other state's law is "causing harm" to the state of TX. It has nothing to do with the "individuals" in either state based on what they are arguing.

[moniss]

32. I believe that the

reasoning in the ruling is problematic in either scenario of whether it be the "individual" or the "state".

[BumRushDaShow]

33. Unfortunately this is how the courts operate

They have all kinds of definitions for familiar "terms" that are known by the legal community but that don't always make sense to the lay community.

When you look at the text of a law or regulations, they often have a whole section near the beginning called "DEFINITIONS", which is like a glossary, in order to establish what they mean when they use such a term. If a lawyer doesn't abide by the "understood" / "stipulated" definitions, then that can trigger the questioning of the intent.

The legal community is in their "own world". You can ask any of the many lawyers on DU (who probably take that for granted because they are taught it and practice it)!

[SunSeeker]

36. Oh dear God, please do not direct people to take the word of anonymous self-appointed legal eagles.

Either on this site or anywhere else. Any anonymous poster who proclaims themselves to be an attorney, and then uses that assertion to get people to believe their legal opinion, is either a liar or an unethical attorney or both.

A legal assertion should stand on its own, without the nonsense of an anonymous poster claiming it is correct because they are an attorney. I appreciate the many people here who are licensed attorneys but don't disclose that fact, let alone brag about it or try to claim their assertions are more valid because they are attorneys.

[BumRushDaShow]

38. Look - I have close family members who ARE lawyers

(one of them right now worried out of her mind about her hubby who works for the federal government as a high level staffer)

It's a FACT that the legal world operates in a very specific way going by specific definitions for things. I have had to take training courses for the legal aspects of MY agency (before I retired) and had done multiple details in the offices that actually handled the compliance aspects for our agency, which required us to point to specific statues that applied to the cases we had developed "evidence" for (our lab work and the documentation captured about a firm by our investigators and inspectors), and then work with our OLC and DOJ if there was a need for an injunction or search warrant and seizure (in the latter cases, where our Investigators would go to a firm with a U.S. Marshall to seize product).

So maybe just take a step back and learn something.

[SunSeeker]

39. Please do not asset you know better than others because your relative is a lawyer.

Please do not assert that because you took a legal training session at your agency (who hasn't?) or that you have family members who are lawyers (who doesn't? ), you know more than I do. You have no idea who I am. And it shouldn't matter who I am. What matters is whether what you or I are stating is correct, not who we are. Address the legal issue at hand, not who you are.

Please dial back the arrogance just a bit.

Of course the legal world has it own terms that have specific legal meanings. Nobody here is disputing that.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. I addressed the issue of "legal definitions"

There is nothing more I can do to convince someone who is convinced of their own "take" of it.

In other words, from what you wrote -

Of course the legal world has it own terms that have specific legal meanings. Nobody here is disputing that.

And THAT is all I am saying and it is what I assert is impacting this particular case.

We will see what happens with Chutkan and her request for parties to present further arguments to her by today.

[SunSeeker]

41. "Legal definitions" aren't at issue here.

It sounds to me (and apparently to moniss) that Chutkan was being much too strict on what is required to "clearly show" irreparable harm.

I don't think the briefs of 14 state Attorneys General failed to state facts. I think she just didn't have the guts to find that those facts showed irreparable harm at this stage of the proceeding.

It sure didn't require the finding of any "specific facts" for the Republican SCOTUS majority to find irreparable harm in Bush v. Gore.

I pray that if and when Chutkan does rule for the states, the horse will not have already left the barn. But I fear the damage will already been done by then, if it hasn't been done already. Trump knows courts usually move very slowly and he has been quite adept at using that to his advantage, like his ability to work the refs.

[BumRushDaShow]

42. I agree that it is all up in the air for what the SCOTUS will do

as they are usually predictable, but not always. It will depend on how much they think their livelihoods are secure (not very) within the world that they created by unleashing this monster.

Based on the other post in this thread (taken from the ruling text) - apparently there is also the issue of the states requesting a "TRO" (for an "emergency" ) versus requesting an "Injunction", which would basically do the same thing but for a longer term.

The time it takes to go through the courts can vary too and it ends up being the luck of the draw to get immediate stays and those who have the resources to avail of the delays ARE what criminal justice reform advocates continually and endlessly decry.

[Nululu]

24. Coward

[Scrivener7]

26. Oh, for fuck's sake!! FOURTEEN Attorneys General couldn't come up with

specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint" that "clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result,"

Are you serious? They didn't put that into the complaint??

[SunSeeker]

37. Sounds to me like she was being much too strict on what is required to "clearly show" irreparable harm.

I don't think the briefs of 14 state Attorneys General failed to state facts. I think she just didn't have the guts to find that those facts showed irreparable harm at this stage of the proceeding.

It sure didn't require the finding of any "specific facts" for the Republican SCOTUS majority to find irreparable harm in Bush v. Gore.

[Scrivener7]

44. It's not like she's shown herself a fan of this mob. She'd have granted it if she could.

As evidenced by her instructions to try again another way.

[SunSeeker]

48. Of course she's not a Trump fan. But she is a human being subject to pressure.

Trump really knows how to play the refs. He has been verbally abusing Chutkan nonstop, accusing her of being biased against him, so she bent over backwards to try to appear fair to him, giving him an advantage. Much like what Mueller did, and the FBI did, and Garland did. They let Trump get away with misbehavior that nobody else could, and hurt the prosecutors in the process.

[BlueKota]

49. The Court's Decisions Are Absolutely Worthless

at this point anyway. Even the ones who have ruled against tsf and his pal, don't matter. The administration has already pretty much admitted that they have no intention of adhering to anything the courts say. Does anyone truly believe that Pam Bondi will do anything to enforce their rulings? Does anyone believe any of the Trump sycophants in the majority in house and senate will impeach the asshat?

The only possible way to change things is if enough of the populace were to stand up and demand a stop to this horror show, but I don't think the will to do it is there, at least presently. People are too afraid and not willing to risk what they have.

Call me pessimistic, if you will, but I think it's better to accept the reality of the bleak circumstances of what is going on than to keep hanging on to false hope. Maybe things will change down the road, but in my opinion right now the light at the end of the tunnel is no where to be seen.