District Judge Rules DOGE Lacks Need for Access to OPM Data
A federal judge granted an injunction against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on Monday, ruling that DOGE employees violated the rights of federal employees when they gained access to their legally-protected sensitive information stored in OPM's systems. The judge, Denise Cote, said she would outline the injunction's scope at a later date.
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 records at issue concern the plaintiffs’ most sensitive private affairs,” with “no ability to opt out of having their information in OPM systems,” which is an injury related to intrusion upon seclusion, said Cote. “It is the intrusion and not the misuse of the data that constitutes the violation."
The judge added, “It is especially unlikely that any DOGE agents ever needed administrative access to any OPM systems. ... The public interest strongly favors injunctive relief.”
Cote also said that the plaintiffs' proof of current harm demonstrates a risk of future harm. In addition to proving injury, the judge said the plaintiffs have shown the likelihood of succeeding in their Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act violation claims.
The district court's ruling goes in the opposite direction from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision from Friday to allow DOGE to access sensitive data at the Social Security Administration (see 2506090052).
This injunction comes as part of an ongoing lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Lex Lumina, Democracy Defenders Fund and the Chandra law firm on behalf of two labor unions and individual current and former government workers across the country. EFF celebrated the win via a press release Monday.
DOGE and OPM have continuously asked the court to dismiss case 25-01237 for lack of standing and jurisdiction (see 2503170044 and 2504010017) and opposed a preliminary injunction (see 2505190043). The U.S. District Court for Southern New York partially rejected a motion to dismiss at the beginning of April, letting the case continue (see 2504030060).