States: Privacy Suit Against DOGE Safeguards Personal Information
A coalition of states fired back against the federal government's request that a court dismiss a privacy case against it Thursday, arguing that the lawsuit remains necessary to protect against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) accessing sensitive state data.
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 states rejected the federal government's claim that DOGE staff may access state data because they have now been onboarded according to conditions the court set for handling personal information. "But it is well settled that a defendant’s voluntary cessation of wrongful conduct in response to a lawsuit does not render a case moot where, as here, it is not absolutely clear that the wrongful conduct will not recur," the states argued in a court document.
In addition, the states said they could still suffer injury because the federal government "can easily resume their rushed and chaotic onboarding of DOGE employees at a moment’s notice, and they have given no assurances to guard against that outcome if they are not enjoined," and even "continue to defend the legality of their past conduct."
In case 1:25-cv-01144 at the U.S. District Court of Southern New York, a coalition of 19 states filed a complaint against the federal government seeking a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction barring President Donald Trump from granting those outside the Treasury Department from accessing Treasury payment or data systems containing personally identifiable information (see 2502070050).
A partial injunction by Judge Jeannette Vargas in February prohibited Treasury Department employees who aren't in a Senate-confirmed position from accessing department systems that contain PII or financial information of payees (see 2502240008). However, the injunction was later partially dissolved as the court ruled the states were unlikely to succeed on their E-Government and Privacy Act of 1974 claims (see 2504140036).
An amended complaint from the states in May again asked that DOGE be blocked from Treasury data (see 2505270017). Vargas ruled that the preliminary injunction order should be modified so that the department and department secretary can't provide access to payment information or systems containing sensitive information unless DOGE personnel handling it have undergone specific training and vetting (see 2505280033).
Trump and the Treasury Department continue to seek dismissal of the case, alleging it's deficient (see 2507250026).