Supreme Court allows DOGE to access Social Security data
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security Administration data.
The conservative-majority court, with its three liberal justices objecting, granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration asking the justices to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland.
The unsigned order said that members of the DOGE team assigned to the Social Security Administration should have "access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work."
The lawsuit challenging DOGE's actions was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers — as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans.
"This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data."
The White House praised the ruling.
"The Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law," White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in a statement.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion questioning the need for the court to intervene on an emergency basis.
"In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes," she added.
DOGE, set up by billionaire Elon Musk before his falling out with President Donald Trump, says it wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. The data it seeks includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information.
"These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court papers.
The lawsuit alleged that allowing broader access to the personal information would violate a federal law called the Privacy Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.
"The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure — and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," the challengers' lawyers wrote in court papers.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had ruled that DOGE had no need to access the specific data at issue. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision, leading to the Trump administration to file its emergency request at the Supreme Court.
In a separate order issued at the same time in another case involving DOGE, the Supreme Court granted another request filed by the Trump administration.
That decision allows the Trump administration to, for now, shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material.
The move formalizes a decision issued by Chief Justice John Roberts on May 23 that temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. The court also told lower courts to limit the scope of what material could be disclosed.
It means the government will not have to respond to requests for documents and allow for the deposition of the DOGE administrator, Amy Gleason, as a lower court had ruled, while litigation continues.
The three liberal justices noted their disagreement with that decision, too.
A spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which filed the lawsuit, said the group was "obviously disappointed" with the decision but "pleased that the court allowed discovery to proceed."
A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
28 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Vance says Musk making a 'huge mistake' in going after Trump but also tries to downplay the attacks
BRIDGEWATER, N.J. (AP) — Vice President JD Vance said Elon Musk was making a 'huge mistake' going after President Donald Trump in a storm of bitter and inflammatory social media posts after a falling out between the two men. But the vice president, in an interview released Friday after the very public blow up between the world's richest man and arguably the world's most powerful, also tried to downplay Musk's blistering attacks as an 'emotional guy' who got frustrated. 'I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear,' Vance said. Vance's comments come as other Republicans in recent days have urged the two men, who months ago were close allies spending significant time together, to mend fences. Musk's torrent of social media posts attacking Trump came as the president portrayed him as disgruntled and 'CRAZY' and threatened to cut the government contracts held by his businesses. Musk, who runs electric vehicle maker Tesla, internet company Starlink and rocket company SpaceX, lambasted Trump's centerpiece tax cuts and spending bill but also suggested Trump should be impeached and claimed without evidence that the government was concealing information about the president's association with infamous pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. 'Look, it happens to everybody,' Vance said in the interview. 'I've flown off the handle way worse than Elon Musk did in the last 24 hours.' Vance made the comments in an interview with ' manosphere' comedian Theo Von, who last month joked about snorting drugs off a mixed-race baby and the sexuality of men in the U.S. Navy when he opened for Trump at a military base in Qatar. The vice president told Von that as Musk for days was calling on social media for Congress to kill Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' the president was 'getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon, but I think has been very restrained because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk.' 'I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine,' he added. Musk appeared by Saturday morning to have deleted his posts about Epstein. The interview was taped Thursday as Musk's posts were unfurling on X, the social media network the billionaire owns. During the interview, Von showed the vice president Musk's claim that Trump's administration hasn't released all the records related to sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein because Trump is mentioned in them. Vance responded to that, saying, 'Absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein.' 'This stuff is just not helpful,' Vance said in response to another post shared by Musk calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced with Vance. 'It's totally insane. The president is doing a good job.' Vance called Musk an 'incredible entrepreneur,' and said that Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, which sought to cut government spending and laid off or pushed out thousands of workers, was 'really good.' The vice president also defended the bill that has drawn Musk's ire, and said its central goal was not to cut spending but to extend the 2017 tax cuts approved in Trump's first term. The bill would slash spending but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by $2.4 trillion over the decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Musk has warned that the bill will increase the federal deficit and called it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'It's a good bill,' Vance said. 'It's not a perfect bill.' He also said it was ridiculous for some House Republicans who voted for the bill but later found parts objectional to claim they hadn't had time to read it. Vance said the text had been available for weeks and said, 'the idea that people haven't had an opportunity to actually read it is ridiculous.' Elsewhere in the interview, Vance laughed as Von cracked jokes about famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass' sexuality. 'We're gonna talk to the Smithsonian about putting up an exhibit on that,' Vance joked. 'And Theo Von, you can be the narrator for this new understanding of the history of Frederick Douglass.' The podcaster also asked the vice president if he 'got high' on election night to celebrate Trump's victory. Vance laughed and joked that he wouldn't admit it if he did. 'I did not get high,' he then said. 'I did have a fair amount to drink that night.' The interview was taped in Nashville at a restaurant owned by musician Kid Rock, a Trump ally.
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump hails court ruling allowing White House to restrict AP access
President Trump celebrated a federal appeals court's ruling that allows the White House, for now, to restrict The Associated Press (AP) from the Oval Office and other limited spaces when reporting on the commander-in-chief. 'Big WIN over AP today,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked, in a 2-1 decision on Friday, an early April order from a district court judge that allowed the AP to regain its access to key White House spaces. The ruling blocked an April 8 order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden that found that the news wire's exclusion from the press pool, a small cadre of reporters reporting on the president's whereabouts, was unlawful. 'The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' Judge Neomi Rao said in the Friday opinion, joined by Judge Gregory Katsas. AP's spokesperson Patrick Maks said the organization is 'disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options.' The White House's decision to exclude the AP originated from the news wire not wanting to use Gulf of America in its industry stylebook. The three-judge panel did not halt the part of McFadden's April order that provides AP access to the East Room. Judge Cornelia Pillard said in her dissent that being able to be in the press pool never relied on the news outlet's viewpoint until this year. 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' Pillard wrote. Days after McFadden ruled in favor of AP in April, the White House removed a spot in the press pool normally occupied by wire services.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You Invested Every Social Security Check for 10 Years, How Rich Would You Be?
One common criticism of Social Security is that Americans would be much better off financially if the money they paid into the retirement program through payroll taxes was instead invested into private investment accounts. That same argument can be applied to Social Security checks — seniors would have much more wealth if they invested their checks as soon as they got them. Be Aware: For You: But is this a reasonable request for most people, especially those on a fixed income? To help find the answer here is a closer look at how much you could earn by investing your Social Security checks over a decade. For those seniors who can afford to invest all of their Social Security checks, the potential payoff is considerable. The following table shows how much profit you would have made if you invested every Social Security check over the past 10 years into the S&P 500, from 2015 through the beginning of 2025. The data includes the average Social Security check by year as previously reported by GOBankingRates. It also includes the average annual return of the S&P 500 from 2015 to 2025, as cited by Macrotrends (other sources might reflect different returns). Up Next: A couple things to keep in mind: The figures below are based only on yearly averages, which means they don't include month-to-month fluctuations that happen with the stock market. They also don't include other types of investments — such as crypto or real estate — that would have produced very different returns. Year Avg. monthly SS check Total SS payments for year S&P 500 return Profit/loss for year 2015 $1,341.77 $16,101.24 -0.73% -$117.54 2016 $1,360.13 $16,321.56 +9.54% +1,557.08 2017 $1,404.15 $16,849.80 +19.42% +3,272.23 2018 $1,461.31 $17,535.72 -6.24% -$1,094.23 2019 $1,455.22 $17,462.64 +28.88% +5,043.21 2020 $1,489.30 $17,871.60 +16.26% +2,905.92 2021 $1,517.98 $18,215.76 +26.89% +4,898.22 2022 $1,615.96 $19,391.52 -19.44% -3,769.71 2023 $1,696.35 $20,356.20 +24.23% +4,932.31 2024 $1,909.01 $22,908.12 +23.31% +5,339.88 2025 $1,976 $23,712 +1.96% +$464.76 Total profit/loss +$23,432.33 According to the table above, if you invested all of your monthly Social Security checks in the S&P 500 over the past decade, your nest egg would have grown by over $20,000. That kind of return should bring cheer to financial gurus, like Dave Ramsey, who recommends applying for Social Security retirement benefits as early as possible. For example, you could start collecting benefits at age 62 instead of the full retirement age of 66 or 67 and then immediately invest every monthly payment. There's just one problem with that reasoning. A large percentage of seniors don't have the financial ability to put their Social Security checks into stocks, bonds, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, real estate, crypto or other investments. They need the money to pay the bills. For about half of U.S. seniors, Social Security provides at least 50% of their overall retirement income, according to research from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. For about one in four seniors, Social Security provides at least 90% of income. These folks have a hard enough time making ends meet, let alone tossing their Social Security checks into various investments that might or might not pay off. Nonetheless, for retirees who can afford to invest their benefit checks, there's a pretty good chance those investments will pay off and boost your retirement savings over the long haul. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money This article originally appeared on If You Invested Every Social Security Check for 10 Years, How Rich Would You Be? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
