An en banc Fourth Circuit debated the role of appellate courts during a testy hearing Thursday concerning an attempt to stop Department of Government Efficiency employees from accessing Social Security data.
A federal judge blocked DOGE from accessing the systems in March, questioning why officials needed large quantities of sensitive information on Social Security recipients. The Fourth Circuit denied the government’s attempt to stay the injunction ruling on the side of labor unions and retirees.
“The crux of this case and the crux of plaintiffs’ position is that government cannot grant itself an all-access pass to confidential, sensitive information merely by boldly asserting the word ’need’ or even the word ‘fraud,’” attorney Alethea Swift of the Democracy Forward Foundation, representing the unions, said.
The Supreme Court issued a June order reversing the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion and implemented a stay on a 6-3 vote. The high court majority said President Donald Trump was likely to succeed in the litigation and would be injured if the justices didn’t intervene, but did not issue an opinion to explain their reasoning.
The merits of the case — in which the labor unions argue DOGE’s unfettered access to sensitive data, including medical and mental health information, as well as family court and children’s school records, violates the Privacy Act — played a minor role in the hearing. The judges primarily argued over what they could decide in the face of the Supreme Court order.
Government attorney Jack Starcher told the judges that even if they felt they should rule on the injunction’s merits, he was confident it would fail. The government argues the unions failed to show injury.
“In imposing this sweeping injunction, the district court assumed the power to micro-manage,” the government wrote in its brief. “As the Supreme Court’s ruling foreshadows, the district court’s preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion and should be vacated.”
U.S. Circuit Court Judge Stephanie Thacker, an Obama appointee, asked whether the unions could only show injury after a data breach.
“Do we have to wait until some authorized person gains access to millions of Americans’ personal information, medical information, mental health information, bank information, before the government thinks that the plaintiffs have standing?” Thacker asked. “The government thinks that there is not standing until, and when, someone gains access to millions of Americans’ and children’s personal information. The government thinks we need to wait for somebody to hack into that unsecure server?”
Add new comment