DOGE urges Fourth Circuit to open vault on federal employees' personal info

RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — Several federal agencies urged a Fourth Circuit panel Monday to allow the Department of Government Efficiency to continue accessing millions of people’s personally identifiable information.

The oral argument comes a month after the same panel issued an order granting the government’s motion to stay a preliminary injunction barring DOGE employees from accessing sensitive data after finding the plaintiffs likely lack standing.

The plaintiffs, totalling over 2 million people, are unions and membership organizations, including the American Federation of Teachers, representing current and former federal employees, federal student aid recipients and six military veterans who have received federal benefits or student loans.

They sued the Department of Education, the Office of Personnel Management and the Treasury Department, along with their respective agency heads, for granting DOGE employees access to their personally identifiable information. The plaintiffs assert that DOGE’s “unrestricted” access to their personal information has caused them “major distress and anxiety” over whether their data could be weaponized against them or released in a privacy breach.

The sensitive data DOGE seeks includes individuals’ taxpayer identification numbers, Social Security numbers and income and asset information. The plaintiffs argue DOGE’s unfettered access violates the Privacy Act of 1974, which generally prohibits agencies from disclosing an individual’s records to anyone, including inside the government, without that individual’s written consent. The plaintiffs further argue DOGE’s conduct is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise contrary to law under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman, a Joe Biden appointee, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on March 24, finding the defendants likely violated the acts.

“No matter how important or urgent the President’s DOGE agenda may be, federal agencies must execute it in accordance with the law,” Boardman wrote. “That likely did not happen in this case.”

The agencies argued to the three-judge panel that the plaintiffs lacked standing, claiming they suffered no injury as the individuals voluntarily provided the data to the government. The agencies believe that for the plaintiff to establish standing, DOGE must do more than access their information; they must use it for unlawful purposes.

They also argued their conduct is exempt under the Privacy Act’s need-to-know exemption. The plaintiffs countered that the agencies failed to give any reason why the DOGE employees would need access to the information.

“They’re looking at our clients’ personally identifiable information without any basis,” Attorney John Schwab of Munger Tolles, representing the plaintiffs, said. “Without any need-to-know.”

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Robert King, a Bill Clinton appointee, agreed with the plaintiffs’ position in his dissenting opinion from his colleagues’ order granting the government’s stay motion.

“At stake is some of the most sensitive personal information imaginable,” King wrote. “This information was entrusted to the government, which for many decades had a record of largely adhering to the Privacy Act of 1974 and keeping the information safe. And then suddenly, the defendants began disclosing the information to DOGE affiliates without substantiating that they have any need to access such highly sensitive materials.”

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Julius Richardson, a President Donald Trump appointee, offered a hypothetical scenario to illustrate why he believes DOGE employees need access to the records to do their job. On his first day back in the Oval Office, Trump signed an executive order to create DOGE and direct it to modernize federal technology and software to maximize efficiency.

Richardson said if he ordered his law clerk to improve a local library, they would need access to the library, its staff, books and website to understand what problems need addressing.

“How is my law clerk supposed to know on the front end whether he needs access to the staffing or he needs access to the subscribers or users of the library until he has some idea of what the problems are, and to know what the problems are, he has to be to go in the library,” Richardson asked. “How is he supposed to know how to improve the library without access to the library?”

Schwab responded that the law clerk could ask the librarian for their opinion. Richardson disagreed.

“Asking the person who’s running the library that’s broken how to fix it isn’t naturally the best way to resolve it," Richardson said. “We bring people in to evaluate it, not to take the word of the people that have run it into the ground.”

Democratic attorneys general, other coalitions of unions and students are litigating similar cases, hoping to block DOGE from accessing personal records with mixed success.

DOGE is not a federal government department but a revamped version of the U.S. Digital Services, a tech service created in 2014 to update government websites.

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Steven Agee, another Trump appointee, completed the panel. Schwab and attorneys representing the agencies did not respond to requests for comment.