Court Won't Restrain Education Department; DOGE Faces Fresh Suit on IRS Data Access
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion for a temporary restraining order against the Education Department, as sought by the University of California Student Association (USCA). Judge Randolph Moss ruled Monday that Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to student data and records will not cause the plaintiffs irreparable harm, so a TRO is unnecessary. However, DOGE faced a new lawsuit at the same court Monday, this time challenging the entity's access to sensitive information at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Education Department "and DOGE staffers are obligated to use UCSA members’ information for lawful purposes within the mission of the Department of Education and to keep it confidential, in accordance with the Privacy Act, tax laws, and other federal laws,” said Moss. “But none of those initiatives should involve disclosure of any sensitive, personal information about any UCSA members. The future injuries that UCSA’s members fear are, therefore, far from likely, let alone ‘certain’ and ‘great.’”
The judge cited DOGE staffer Adam Ramada, who told the court the six DOGE employees at the Education Department were helping audit programs for waste, fraud and abuse. They understand they must “'comply with all applicable laws and regulations should they wish to share any information garnered during their work.'”
The student association sued the Education Department on Feb. 7 and asked the court for a TRO (see 2502100074). Acting Secretary Denise Carter opposed the motion on Feb. 13 (see 2502130037). The association renewed its call for a TRO on Friday (see 2502140016).
Meanwhile, Democracy Forward filed an emergency suit in federal court to stop Elon Musk and DOGE from accessing sensitive taxpayer data from the IRS, the nonprofit announced Monday. Democracy Forward represented the Center for Taxpayer Rights, Main Street Alliance, the National Federation of Federal Employees and Communications Workers of America in the complaint.
"DOGE’s behavior repeats itself across virtually every agency it enters: swooping in with new DOGE staff, demanding access to sensitive systems, taking employment action against employees who resist their unlawful commands, and then beginning to re-work the agencies at their will," the lawsuit said. "Whatever clear lines DOGE may seek to blur with regard to other agencies and data sets, its arrival at the IRS and attempt to obtain sensitive tax information puts things precisely in focus."
These actions are unlawful and must be stopped, said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. “Hundreds of millions of Americans across the nation file taxes and provide sensitive, personal information to the IRS, and they do so knowing that Congress has put in place protections to safeguard their data. DOGE is taking a wrecking ball to these protections and harming hardworking Americans and small businesses in the process."
Democracy Forward alleges that DOGE's actions violate the Privacy Act, as well as other federal laws, and requests the court enjoin DOGE access and disclosure of information and delete all unlawfully obtained information, among other things.
“Our more than 110,000 professional and non-professional federal workers deserve to be able to trust that their sensitive financial information is protected and secure,” said Randy Erwin, National Federation of Federal Employees president. “The Privacy Act was established after Watergate to prevent exactly this type of behavior. Musk and his operatives’ unfettered, lawless access must be stopped.”
Robinson Cole privacy lawyer Linn Foster Freeman argued in a blog last week that DOGE employees don't need access to people’s private information to execute their cost-cutting goals. “A tenet of data security is proper access controls, only having access to the data needed for business purposes,” she said. “DOGE’s unfettered access to our highly sensitive information is not limited to only data needed for a specific purpose. The security procedures for accessing the data are in question, and proper security protocols must be followed.”