Judge to Consider Restricting Musk Team’s Access to Education Dept. Data

The New York Times ^ | Feb. 11, 2025, 9:59 a.m. ET | Zach Montague

[E. Pluribus Unum]

A federal judge in Washington will consider a legal challenge on Tuesday against the Education Department, which is seeking to bar Elon Musk and his team from gaining access to its data systems.

The lawsuit, brought by two legal groups representing the University of California Student Association, sought to restrict Mr. Musk’s associates from combing through the Education Department’s data because of privacy concerns, given the personal identifying information that students routinely disclose when applying for federal aid.

Mr. Musk’s team, part of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, has been operating in the Education Department for more than a week. They were added to the agency’s staff directory and have been working from the top floor of its main building in Washington.

President Trump’s appointees have also briefed staff members at the Education Department that Mr. Musk’s team will scrutinize the agency’s budget and operations. They warned various offices in the Education Department to expect some upheaval in connection to the review, according to recordings obtained by The Times.

Mr. Musk’s cost-cutting team, which has taken the lead in shuttering other agencies such as U.S.A.I.D. and slashing government programs, said on Monday that the Education Department had “terminated” 89 contracts and 29 grants associated with diversity and equity training.

A spokesman for the Education Department did not elaborate on what programs or grants it ostensibly gave the order to suspend, referring reporters to a social media post from the account associated with Mr. Musk’s efforts.

The cuts announced on Monday appeared to mostly affect the Education Department’s research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences. The division produces and curates research on best practices in education and relies heavily on contractors to carry out its work.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

This is so much fun!

[DownInFlames]

No standing.

[dowcaet]

The Democrat judicial puppets are grasping at straws. This is the equivalent of telling an accountant at a company that he can’t have access to their financial records. They’re flailing and they’re desperate! The screaming and shrieking from scared Democrats is fun to watch!

[Recompennation]

Since when does any judge rule outside of the courtroom and judicially only

[iamgalt]

“ No standing.”

Won’t matter, if this rat is “looking at it” that is code for “ l am writing the restraining order”.

[quantim]

Getting rid of Musk is bizarrely easy, just close DoED down by the weekend.

[Zathras]

I do believe we have found another money laundering operation.
This time working for the NEA

[cmj328]

Dude, they’re winning.

[lapsus calami]

 

 

 

 

DENIED!

 

 

[blackdog]

By “Education Data”, the judge means cash payouts, not actual education data. If he did, he would toss the entire Education Department in jail.

[Timmy]

Conservative lawsuits seem to always be rejected due to lack of “standing.” However, any obscure liberal group can have their suits considered.

[bigbob]

Education Secretary hires Elon’s guys. Problem solved.

[John S Mosby]

Since the Department of Education no longer exists, no judge in US jurisdiction can “order it back” in place. So tough crap. We are NOT ruled by judges. We are ruled by the US Constitution and the 3 Branches of government therein. Separation of powers— judges do NOT overrule Executive Branch, particularly because they are part of the Executive Branch under the Department of Justice— a cabinet level executive position known as the Attorney General of the United States (who works for the US Govt. as directed by the Chief Executive, aka. The President of the United States). It’s really quite easy. Judge- shut up and sit down, or don’t and risk prosecution and removal from the bench for violations, criminal against the US Constitution.

[Bratch]

From Kurt Schlichter on X:

Here is a long take on the court injunction crisis, which is less crisis than an opportunity…

OK, stop panicking about all the stupid legal decisions from leftist judges that the left is getting from judge shopping in leftist jurisdictions.

Stop. Panicking.

First, no one should be surprised by any of this. The administration certainly isn’t. We always knew exactly what they would do. Do not take the fact they are not screaming and yelling as them rolling over. They are not rolling over. There’s plenty going on behind the scenes as administration lawyers prepare their papers for the legal fight to come.

Second, since we have to have this fight, this is the time and the battleground to have it. Why? We want it settled right at the beginning of the administration so that we don’t have to deal with this down the road. And we want to fight on these orders because

1. they are manifestly the result of bad faith judge shopping and the opinions themselves are both procedural and
2. they are substantively ridiculous.

They are legal jokes. Don’t listen to the dummy lawyers on Twitter - only listen to me or the people I tell you that you can rely on. Everyone telling you these are reasoned, valid legal decisions is either a legal illiterate or thinks you are stupid.

Third, the way this fight is happening is to our advantage. Wait, you ask, we’re getting decision after decision against us! How can that be good?

Because they are leaving the Supreme Court no choice. People want Trump to sound off about this, but he doesn’t need to.

What’s left unstated is the fact that he can just not obey these manifestly improper orders. They say it’s a constitutional crisis now, but that becomes a real one when they push Trump too far.

He’s not going to submit forever to micromanagement of the executive branch by activist District Court judges in blue cities across America. And Chief Justice Roberts knows it.

CJ Roberts and majority of the court know these are ridiculous legally, and the last thing they want to do is stake the credibility of the Court – which famously has no divisions – on this kind of nonsense. They are not going to jump on the grenade that is these decisions. There might someday be a fight with a president about something where he is legally in the wrong, but this is not that time. This is not the hill the Supreme Court will die on.

Wisely, Trump’s not adding fuel to the fire by threatening to do what it’s very clear he can do, which is disobey. This provides SCOTUS the cover it needs to deal with these upstart district courts without looking like Trump strong-armed it.

So relax and let the process go forward. We’re going to win on all these injunctions, and I expect fairly quickly

[chiller]

They are

MUSKETEERS

....and always win

[Fury]

Since the Department of Education no longer exists...

? It still exists as it was made a Department via law passed by the House/Senate and signed by President Carter.

"On October 17, 1979 President James E. Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act (P.L. 96-88; 93 Stat. 668). It replaced the Office of Education with a department proper, and installed a secretary at its head."

-see https://federaleducationpolicy.org/2011/04/15/department-of-education-organization-act-1979/

[frogjerk]

Do they have security clearance or not? If so, then there is no problem.

[Jacquerie]

There is no need for panic.

The worst thing Trump’s team could do is overreact and start openly defying court orders—that’s a losing strategy with long-term constitutional consequences.

Trump has the Supreme Court. It’s much smarter to let these weak orders pile up and then race them up the appellate ladder, which is exactly what is happening now.

That’s why we must show restraint and hew to the rule of law. Let these leftist lower courts exhaust themselves with legally dubious rulings, and then let the Supreme Court do what it was built to do: settle the matter decisively.

Scotus will rule in favor of the unitary executive.

[Future Snake Eater]

“Mass Theft Thrives in Darkness”

[kiryandil]

The obamastooge Randolph D Moss [US District of Democrat stoogeclowns] has got this one, apparently.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/56794522/UNIVERSITY_OF_CALIFORNIA_STUDENT_ASSOCIATION_v_CARTER_et_al