152 F.4th 162
4th Cir.2025Background
- The President issued Executive Order 14,158 in January 2025, creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and requiring federal agencies to establish internal DOGE teams with broad IT access.
- The Department of Education, OPM, and Treasury complied, granting DOGE affiliates administrator-level access to unclassified agency IT systems and data.
- Plaintiffs, including professional organizations and individuals with potentially affected personal data, sued to block DOGE affiliates' access, alleging violations of the Privacy Act and the APA.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction, halting DOGE affiliates’ access; the government appealed, and a stay was granted pending appeal.
- The Supreme Court stayed a similar injunction in a related case against the SSA, signaling skepticism about the plaintiffs’ asserted harms and their likelihood of success.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits given multiple uncertain and independent hurdles, and remanded the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing | Disclosure of PII to DOGE affiliates is analogous to common-law intrusion upon seclusion (concrete injury). | No concrete injury; mere unauthorized access, not intrusion or public disclosure. | Plaintiffs likely lack standing; no close analog injury. |
| Final Agency Action (APA) | Grant of IT access to DOGE affiliates is a reviewable final agency action. | Mere IT access is not a final agency action; lacks permanence and legal consequences. | Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on this showing. |
| APA Preclusion by Privacy Act | Monetary damages under the Privacy Act are inadequate; APA injunctive relief should be allowed. | Privacy Act provides a detailed remedial scheme, precluding APA claims for this conduct. | Privacy Act likely precludes APA claim here. |
| Privacy Act “Need-to-Know” Exception | DOGE affiliates’ access exceeded legitimate agency needs and thus violated Privacy Act disclosure limits. | DOGE’s broad IT duties justify administrator-level access under the “need-to-know” exception. | Access likely permitted; plaintiffs not likely to win. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (emphasized the four-factor test for preliminary injunctions as an "extraordinary remedy")
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (defined “final agency action” under the APA)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (clarified requirement for concrete injury in fact for Article III standing)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (burden for preliminary injunction is always on plaintiff)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (emphasized the exceptional nature of preliminary equitable relief)