Trump Admin. Scores a Big Win at 4th Circuit Regarding DOGE
By Susie MooreThe Trump administration scored a significant appellate win on Friday with a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling regarding DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records.
The appellate court, sitting en banc, vacated the preliminary injunction issued by Maryland District Court Judge Ellen Hollander in April of 2025 — a decision that blocked DOGE personnel from accessing sensitive SSA data. The Trump administration appealed that (district court) decision, even filing an application for stay with the Supreme Court when the 4th Circuit denied its motion for a stay pending appeal. That application was granted by the Supreme Court in June, and the 4th Circuit heard oral argument on the matter in September.
In its Friday decision, the 4th Circuit laid out some background regarding the claims at issue:
Three organizations representing a combined seven million Americans sued to prevent DOGE from accessing their members’ personally identifiable information. When the case was filed and in the original preliminary injunction proceedings, plaintiffs’ theory of the case was not that DOGE had misused the information or disclosed it (accidentally or otherwise) to malicious actors. Instead, plaintiffs argued that handing over non-anonymized and highly sensitive information to DOGE was itself unlawful.
In vacating the district court's order, the 4th Circuit looked to the four requirements for an injunction:
- likely success
- irreparable harm
- balance of equities
- public interest
The majority found that plaintiffs could not satisfy the irreparable harm requirement, reasoning that damages may be available later under the Privacy Act and/or that permanent injunctive relief may later undo the harm, and therefore, emergency relief is/was not justified at this point.
There's an added twist to this one that also bears note: The 4th Circuit actually walked back its own language from another recent DOGE ruling (American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent). Without wandering too far into the weeds here, in that case, the court had gotten a bit too intricate with its analysis, and now, in Friday's ruling, it reaffirmed the basic four-factor test referenced above.
It also is worth noting that this decision was rather split, with multiple concurrences and dissents. The appellate judges are not all on the same page when it comes to the issues of standing and irreparable harm, as well as the effect of the Supreme Court's stay.
But in the end, this is a solid procedural win for the administration. The case will return to the district court, where the merits are still being litigated. We'll continue to keep tabs on it and report on any additional developments of note.
 |
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐