On Friday, the Supreme Court provisionally granted the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), previously headed by Elon Musk, complete access to data maintained by the Social Security Administration. This includes Social Security numbers, medical and mental health records, as well as family court information.
In an unsigned ruling, the Court supported a request from the Trump administration, reversing lower court decisions that had limited the DOGE team’s access to this sensitive information, as reported by NPR.
The case has been sent back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond for a determination on the substantive issues involved.
The Supreme Court decided 6-3 in favor of the DOGE team, with the conservative supermajority endorsing the temporary access to Social Security records. The Court’s three liberal justices dissented, indicating they would have prevented the DOGE team from accessing the information while the case progresses through the appeals process.
This case originated on the first day of Trump’s second term, when he assigned DOGE the task of “modernizing Federal technology and software to enhance governmental efficiency and productivity.”
Acting Social Security Commissioner Michelle King initially declined to provide the DOGE team with access to confidential Social Security records. Shortly thereafter, she resigned instead of complying with the request. Her successor, Leland Dudek, changed the decision and granted what critics have labeled as “unfettered access” to the SSA’s data systems for the DOGE team.
Friday’s ruling represents the most recent in a succession of triumphs at the high court for constitutionalists.
Earlier this week, the court reached unanimous decisions in several cases, including one that rejected Mexico’s effort to sue American gun manufacturers and another that supported a straight woman who alleged workplace discrimination.
Additionally, on Friday, the nation’s highest court opted not to address challenges to state and local lawsuits against oil companies aimed at compelling them to provide compensation for purported climate change-related damages.
States that produce energy, oil companies, and industry associations have initiated two challenges against a wave of climate lawsuits. Detractors argue that these states are leveraging these lawsuits to enforce anti-fossil fuel policies. Consequently, oil companies could be obligated to pay tens of billions to state and local governments — expenses that will ultimately be transferred to consumers.
“Consumers do not benefit from these lawsuits, which aim to eliminate products from store shelves and redirect funds to leftist initiatives,” remarked O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, a nonprofit organization advocating for consumer rights.
“Let us hope that the defendants in these lawsuits persist in contesting these cases, as they have consistently succeeded in the final stages of review, which is the only means to ensure that consumers are not sacrificed in the face of the leftist onslaught,” Skinner further stated.
The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, indicated that not addressing the Honolulu case at this time could lead to an increase in lawsuits from activists aiming to assume the role of the nation’s energy regulators.
“I trust that the Court will eventually address this matter, in the interest of constitutional accountability and the public good,” stated Adam White, a senior fellow at the institute.
Recently, the high court overturned lower court decisions and permitted President Donald Trump’s administration to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua residing in the United States, thereby endorsing the president’s initiative to escalate deportations.
The court suspended the order issued by Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, which had halted the administration’s efforts to terminate the immigration “parole” that had been granted to 532,000 of these migrants by former President Joe Biden, potentially putting many of them at risk of immediate removal while the case is adjudicated in lower courts.
Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission provided by U.S. law to enter the country for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” allowing recipients to reside and work in the United States.
Biden asserted that he had implemented it as part of his administration’s approach to deter illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border.
