On Thursday, a federal judge imposed new restrictions on government efficiency for billionaire Elon Musk, limiting access to the Social Security system, which holds personal data about millions of Americans.
US District Judge Ellen Hollander has issued a preliminary injunction in a case brought by a group of unions and retirees who allegedly violated privacy laws and presented a massive information security risk.
Hollander had previously issued a temporary restraining order.
The injunction allows Doge staff to access data that has been edited or deprived of personally identifiable items when they undergo training or background checks.
Hollander said Doge and staff members at Doge must purge deanonized social security data they have received since January 20th.
It is also prohibited to make any changes to the computer code or software used by the Social Security Agency, and must remove any software or code that you have already installed and to disclose any of the code to other code.
“The purpose of dealing with fraud, waste, mismanagement and bloating is commendable, and the American people are probably applauding and supporting,” Hollander wrote in a ruling issued late Thursday night. “It’s true that taxpayers have every right to expect the government to ensure that their hard-earned money is not wasted.”
But that doesn’t matter, Hollander said – the question is how Doge wants to do his job.
“For about 90 years, the SSA has been led by the fundamental principles of privacy expectations regarding its records. This case exposes a wide crack within the foundations,” the judge wrote.
During a federal court hearing in Baltimore Tuesday, Hollander repeatedly asked government lawyers why they needed “seemingly free access” of the agency’s sensitive personal information to uncover social security fraud.
Members and retirees gathered outside the court to protest Doge’s actions. This takes into account the threat to the future of Social Security benefits.
“What do you need all that information?” Hollander said he questioned whether most of the data could be anonymized, at least in the early stages of the analysis.
Lawyers for the Trump administration said changing the process would slow the effort.
“Anonymization is possible, but it’s very burdensome,” Justice Department lawyer Bradley Humphries told the court.
He argued that DOGE Access did not deviate significantly from normal practices within agents where employees and auditors are allowed to search the database regularly.
However, the plaintiff’s lawyers called it an unprecedented “sea change” in terms of how they handle sensitive information, including medical and mental health records and other data about children and people with disabilities.
Alethea Anne Swift, an attorney for Democracy Forwary, the legal services group behind the lawsuit, said access alone is a privacy violation that harms Social Security beneficiaries.
“That intrusion causes objectively rational anxiety,” she said.
Since President Donald Trump began his second term, the Social Security Agency has been experiencing chaos. In February, agent Michelle King resigned from her role after refusing to provide Doge staff with the access they wanted.
The White House replaced her with Leland Dudeck. He did not compete in Tuesday’s hearing after Hollander demanded his presence to testify about recent efforts involving Doge. The judge issued a letter last month rebuking Dudeck’s threat that he might have to close the agency’s operations or suspend payments due to Hollander’s temporary restraining order.
Hollander has made it clear that her orders do not apply to SSA workers who have not partnered with Doge or provided information, allowing them to access data they use during the normal course of work.
However, she said Doge staff who want access to anonymized data should first undergo the typical training and background checks needed by other Social Security department staff.
In recent weeks, Dudek has faced a call to resign after Maine parents issued an order requiring newborns to be registered for their Social Security numbers at the federal agency rather than at the hospital. The order was cancelled immediately.
But the email showed it was a political recall for Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat who violated the Trump administration’s push to deny federal funding to states for transgender athletes.
Despite the political context surrounding the Doge Access case, Hollander warned Humphries at a hearing Tuesday when he proposed that her questions were “starting to feel like a policy disagreement.”
“I’m just trying to understand the system, so I’ll attack your comments,” the judge said at a hearing Tuesday.
Nominated for the federal bench by President Barack Obama, Hollander, 75, is the newest judge to consider doge-related cases.
Many of her inquiries focused on whether Social Security cases differ significantly from another Maryland case where three other agencies challenge access to Doge’s data: the Department of Education, the Department of Treasury and the Department of Personnel Management.
In that case, the Court of Appeals recently blocked the provisional injunction and cleared the way Doge once again accesses people’s personal data.
Hollander’s injunction could also appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This was on his side with the Trump administration in other cases. This includes granting Doge access to the US International Development Agency and advancing executive orders on diversity, equity and inclusion.
