Posted on 02/15/2025 10:49:02 AM PST by SoConPubbie
U.S. District Judge John Bates has ruled in favor of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), allowing Musk’s budget-slashing team continued access to critical records from the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The ruling deals a major blow to the entrenched bureaucracy and their progressive allies, who sought to block Musk’s efforts to streamline bloated agencies and cut unnecessary spending.
A coalition of left-wing unions and nonprofits had desperately attempted to shield the agencies from oversight, but the judge’s late-night decision on Friday kept DOGE’s mission alive.
U.S. District Judge John Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, declined a request by unions and nonprofits to temporarily block Musk’s team from accessing records at the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In his written opinion, Judge Bates noted that it was likely the government was correct in asserting that DOGE qualifies as an agency, thereby allowing it to assign its staff to other government departments.
This ruling empowers DOGE to proceed with its mandate to identify and rectify wasteful practices within these agencies.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 15, 2025
ABC News reported:
The judge’s decision came down to the question of whether DOGE has the authority to “detail” its people to individual parts of the federal government where – as employees of that department or agency – the individuals associated with DOGE could legally access the sensitive records. To have that authority, DOGE would have to be considered an “agency” in the eyes of the law, Bates wrote.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that DOGE is not an agency — because it was created via an executive order — and therefore is not entitled to detail its employees to parts of the federal government.
Curiously, lawyers for DOGE have attempted to avoid the “agency” label during court hearings despite its “strong claim” to agency status, Bates wrote.
“This appears to come from a desire to escape the obligations that accompany agencyhood” — such as being subject to the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act — “while reaping only its benefits,” the judge wrote.
Ultimately, the disagreed with DOGE’s own interpretation of its status — determining it likely is an “agency” — and delivering it a surprise win by determining that DOGE has the authority to continue to access to sensitive records.
“For the reasons explained above, on the record as it currently stands and with limited briefing on the issue, the case law defining agencies indicates that plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency. If that is so, [DOGE] may detail its employees to other agencies consistent with the Economy Act,” he wrote.
Last week, Bates also denied a motion by labor unions to block DOGE from accessing sensitive systems within the Department of Labor.
The lawsuit, brought by one of the largest labor unions in the U.S., aimed to obstruct what they described as Musk’s “imminent plan” to delve into the Labor Department’s systems.
Judge John D. Bates ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing, a crucial legal threshold required to proceed with their claim.
The court found that the unions did not provide sufficient evidence showing that their members faced imminent harm from the DOGE Service’s data access.
Moreover, the court highlighted that while the plaintiffs articulated general concerns about data privacy, they did not demonstrate specific, individualized harm necessary to satisfy legal standing requirements.
Read more:
bttt
Bates needed a hard, swift kick in the butt.
Good!!
It’s worth keeping mind there are always deeper issues in play that may not be apparent.
For one, I’ve read legal experts saying that the lawfare attempts may backfire on the left in ways they really do not want to happen. For example, some say the current Supreme Court may favor limitations or even a ban on the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide restraining orders. If that were to happen it would be the equivalent of a nuclear bomb!
So there may be some judges who are looking down the road at the future repercussions of over-reach.
The smartest thing for the left would be to let DOGE do it’s job and then get on board with the cuts and savings, so the Republicans along can’t claim credit. But of course they are not smart.
Alito and Thomas have made reference to the need for nationwide injunction reform. One of these cases may provide the vehicle for this ridiculous and unconstitutional tool to be tossed away
We do need to address district judges who can lock down the whole nation from these lower court benches.
The judge who is shutting DOGE out of Treasury and ordering docs destroyed cited no precedent or statute, and the White House counsel were not even in the court room.
What are “sensitive records”?
Send it to the USSC; they can then stomp on these activist Judges. Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 7 states that posting a record of where public money is spent is mandatory. Just people forget to read the US Constitution. Mainly the DNC; that’s why they hate it,
But the delay gave them enough time to shred all the evidence, right? We all know how this game is played by now.
I notice at long last a federal judge has found a group that has standing to sue the Executive Branch of U.S. government. It is no surprise that it is the unions.
One of the most interesting legal suggestions, I have heard is for the federal government demand of judges trying to restrain DOGE, that the judge must impose a bond for any potential damages that might accrue is say a labor union gets a national injunction against DOGE investigating the Dept. of Labor.
It is a “F*$# around and find out” approach to such lawsuits, where filing the lawsuit could bankrupt those filing the lawsuit, if an injunction is granted and ultimately DOGE finds hundreds of millions in fraud that could have been prevented, but wasn’t.
Why is that?
He started out on the wrong foot, but fortunately for him he saw the light.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.