Last Friday certainly brought good news for the Trump administration with judicial victories, as we covered with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit's ruling on restricting the Associated Press' access. The U.S. Supreme Court also handed down two victories for the administration to do with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on the emergency docket.
In March, U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander, a senior district court judge for the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, temporarily blocked the Social Security Administration (SSA) DOGE from accessing records. That was extended in April, and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected the administration's request for a pause, prompting the administration to then ask the Court to weigh in. That unsigned order was handed down on Friday, though the liberal justices indicated they would not have signed on. Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor have continuously ruled against the Trump administration.
As SCOTUSblog mentioned about the case on Friday:
On March 20, Senior U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander issued an order that temporarily blocked the SSA from allowing DOGE team members to have access to the agency’s records. On April 17, Hollander extended that bar while litigation continued in the lower courts.
When a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected the Trump administration’s request to pause Hollander’s order, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to step in. Sauer told the justices that Hollander’s order “does not merely halt the Executive Branch’s critically important efforts to improve its information-technology infrastructure and waste,” but “also constitutes inappropriate superintendence of a coequal branch.”
The plaintiffs urged the justices to stay out of the dispute. They stressed that Hollander’s order is limited in duration as well as in scope, because it merely prohibits DOGE team members from accessing SSA records if they have not yet undergone training and background checks. But, according to the plaintiffs, their members will be permanently harmed if Hollander’s order is lifted and their records are disclosed. The data stored by the SSA “is among the most sensitive in government records,” they wrote. And there is little that can be done to compensate them if their records are disclosed, they said, because “the core harm stems from the invasion of privacy itself.”
In an unsigned three-paragraph order, the Supreme Court granted the government’s request. The opinion noted that when deciding whether to put a lower court’s decision on hold, the court considers four criteria: whether the party seeking the stay is likely to prevail on the merits; whether it will be permanently harmed if the decision is not paused; whether the stay will “substantially injure” other parties to the dispute; and the public interest. When all of these factors are applied to this case, the court wrote, they lead to the conclusion that Hollander’s decision should be temporarily blocked while the government’s appeals continue – through the Supreme Court if necessary. “SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.”
Justice Elena Kagan indicated, without more, that she would have denied the government’s request.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, in an opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor...
Recommended
When it comes to the unsigned opinion in American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. SSA, there were four factors laid out:
When considering whether to grant a stay, this Court looks to four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556U. S. 418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U. S. 770, 776 (1987)). After review, we determine that the application of these factors in this case warrants granting the requested stay. We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.
Throughout President Donald Trump's second term, there have been a considerable amount of lawsuits brought against the administration, including and especially when it comes to DOGE. Trump as well as his administration and congressional Republicans have certainly taken notice.
Curt Levey, the president of the Committee For Justice, also made note of this in his statement for Townhall about Friday's decision.
"The first several months of Trump’s presidency has been characterized by lawfare seemingly against the Administration’s every move, combined with massive forum shopping to increase the chances of finding sympathetic judges. Much of that lawfare has been aimed at obstructing DOGE’s work to make the federal government more efficient and modernize its technology," Levey shared. "A classic example is this lawsuit, which challenged DOGE’s access to Social Security Administration data and was heard by an Obama-appointed district court judge, who quickly blocked DOGE’s access. Friday’s decision, which stayed the judge’s order, is one of the encouraging instances in which the Supreme Court has pushed back against these activist judges."
As Becca Lower highlighted at our sister site of RedState, Democrats were less than thrilled with the decision, just as they've been less than thrilled with this Trump administration from the start, even prompting them to issue threats. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) was especially fired up.
"Your Social Security number. Your medical history. Your finances. All in the hands of unqualified, unelected — and unaccountable — officials," Clark warned in part of her post. "Republicans are ready to dismantle our oversight safeguards and auction off your info to the highest bidder."
The Supreme Court just gave DOGE a green light to go fishing in Americans' private data.
— Katherine Clark (@WhipKClark) June 6, 2025
Your Social Security number. Your medical history. Your finances. All in the hands of unqualified, unelected — and unaccountable — officials.
Republicans are ready to dismantle our… https://t.co/Y5iBTE2YTn
But again, this victory for the Trump administration that drove Clark to such hysterical fearmongering wasn't the only one handed down.
The case of CREW v. DOGE, which involved Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was referred to the entire Court by Chief Justice John Roberts. The three liberal justices once again indicated they would have denied the application.
As SCOTUSblog also summarized about Friday's decisions on the emergency docket:
CREW went to federal court in Washington on Feb. 20. In its FOIA lawsuit, it asked DOGE to hand over documents that it said it wanted before Congress passed a bill to fund the federal government.
CREW also sought to fast-track discovery – the process of exchanging information in litigation – to determine whether DOGE is a federal “agency” that must comply with FOIA. It asked for a list of current and former DOGE employees, a list of employees and positions for which DOGE had recommended termination, a list of government contracts and grants that DOGE had recommended be canceled, and the opportunity to depose Gleason.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper granted most of CREW’s discovery requests, including its request to depose Gleason, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected DOGE’s plea to put Cooper’s order on hold.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer then came to the Supreme Court on May 21, asking the justices to intervene. He told the justices that the discovery required under Cooper’s order was “expedited” and “intrusive” and “offends the separation of powers by compromising the ‘necessity’ for confidentiality that allows presidential advisors to provide ‘candid, objective’ advice and communication.”
CREW urged the justices to leave Cooper’s order in place. It countered that the order is “narrowly-tailored” and that the determination whether an entity is an “agency” for FOIA purposes is a fact-specific one “for which courts have ‘previously endorsed limited discovery.’”
In a two-page unsigned order on Friday, the justices sent the dispute back to the D.C. Circuit for another look. According to the court, the portions of Cooper’s discovery order that requires the government to disclose the content of DOGE’s recommendations within the executive branch, as well as whether those recommendations were followed, are too broad. Moreover, the court added, concerns about the separation of powers between the branches of government “counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications.”
Such victories were handed down for the Trump administration after the Court had already had a busy Thursday, which included three unanimous decisions, as it approaches the end of the term.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member