Court grants cases on DOGE data dispute, prisoners’ rights, and what qualifies as “material support” for terrorism

The Supreme Court on Tuesday added three new cases to its oral argument docket for the 2026-27 term, agreeing to decide, among other things, what kinds of orders trial courts can issue in disputes over access to government information and whether working as a cook in a camp run by violent separatists qualifies as providing “material support” for terrorism under federal immigration law.

President Donald Trump created the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE, in January 2025 to advance his agenda by “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” Although it is not a cabinet-level department, DOGE was widely involved in Trump’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government.

The dispute now before the court, U.S. Doge Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, began after a government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for (among other things) communications between the DOGE administrator, Amy Gleason, and DOGE staff, as well as financial disclosures submitted by DOGE personnel.

CREW went to federal court in Washington last year, asking DOGE to disclose documents that it said it wanted before Congress passed a bill to fund the federal government.

The article continues....

“In a two-page, unsigned order in early June 2025, the court – over the objections of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – sent the dispute back to the D.C. Circuit for another look. The majority wrote that the portions of Cooper’s discovery order that required the government to disclose the content of DOGE’s recommendations within the executive branch, as well as whether those recommendations were followed, were too broad. Moreover, it added, concerns about the separation of powers between the branches of government “counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications.” The court put Cooper’s discovery orders on hold while the litigation continued.

When the case returned to the lower courts, CREW modified its discovery requests so that it no longer sought information about “recommendations” made by U.S. DOGE employees. The lower courts then declined to block CREW’s requests.

DOGE came to the Supreme Court in March, asking the justices to weigh in. Sauer told the court that the D.C. Circuit “has continued to approve intrusive discovery against a presidential advisory body without adequate consideration for the separation of powers, the FOIA statute, and” the Supreme Court’s order last year on the interim docket. Among other things, he argued, that order “required the courts below to reassess all remaining discovery—not just requests for USDS recommendations—with the ‘deference and restraint’ applicable to presidential advisors under Cheney v. U.S. District Court,” a 2004 case in which the justices held that when considering requests for information directed at the vice-president and other senior executive branch officials, “special considerations” should “control when the Executive Branch’s interests in maintaining the autonomy of its office and safeguarding the confidentiality of its communications are implicated.”

CREW urged the justices to deny review. It argued that in formulating the new discovery order, the D.C. Circuit had “followed this Court’s instructions” in its earlier ruling on the interim docket “to the letter.” Instead, it contended, the government was seeking “to transform this Court’s carefully crafted stay-stage order into a sweeping ruling that Cheney effectively forecloses discovery in this case. That is not what this Court said,” CREW insisted, “and, especially after remand, this case looks nothing like Cheney.”

On Tuesday, the court agreed to address the D.C. Circuit’s ruling.”

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.