AFT's Unlikely Success Leads 4th Circuit to Toss Injunction in DOGE Case
Since an appeals court believes the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and others are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their privacy case that challenges the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) access to sensitive government data, the court overturned a district court's ruling that let AFT temporarily block DOGE.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
The court issued its judgment in case 25-1282 on Tuesday (see 2508120055). In March, U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Boardman granted a preliminary injunction, agreeing with AFT's allegation that DOGE was violating the 1974 Privacy Act and other federal laws when it sought access to data at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Education Department. The allegations were part of a Feb. 10 suit in case 25-00430 (see 2503240055).
"A preliminary injunction is just that -- preliminary," said 4th Circuit Judge Julius Richardson in this week's opinion. He was joined by Judge Steven Agee. "A decision to grant or deny one does not conclusively resolve the case."
"One feature unique to preliminary injunctions looms large in this case: 'that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success,'” he added. "This difference is more significant than it might seem at first glance," as "adding 'likelihood' to the merits analysis creates a probabilistic structure that stacks the deck against a plaintiff who must prevail on multiple independent issues to prevail overall. The district court failed to account for this structure and thus miscalculated Plaintiffs’ likelihood of succeeding on the merits."
Richardson said there is a high bar to meet when seeking a preliminary injunction, and in case 25-1282, "the number of obstacles Plaintiffs must surmount remains unchanged, and further briefing has only highlighted their arguments’ weaknesses," including lack of standing.
Judge Robert King, however, dissented, saying that the majority panel conjured up an even higher bar of success in its opinion for the plaintiffs to meet.
"Contrary to the panel majority, the district court did exactly what it was obliged to do. Specifically, in its thorough and cogent Opinion, the district court separately assessed the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the contested merits issue," like their potential lack of standing.
"Having determined that the plaintiffs demonstrated what the panel majority now terms a 'normal' likelihood of success on each of these issues, the district court then properly concluded that the plaintiffs established a 'normal' likelihood of success overall," King added.