JUST IN: Judge Chutkan Sides With DOGE, Smacks Down Democrat States

A federal judge handed Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) a significant victory on Tuesday, rejecting a bid by 14 Democratic attorneys general to block DOGE from accessing federal data systems at seven key executive branch agencies. The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, denies an emergency request for a temporary restraining order, allowing Musk’s government streamlining initiative to continue unfettered—at least for now.

The attorneys general from states like New Mexico and Connecticut sought to prevent Musk and DOGE from taking action at the Department of Labor, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Department of Commerce, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The lawsuit argued that Musk’s sweeping authority over personnel, spending, and operations within these agencies violated the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause and exceeded statutory authority.

However, Judge Chutkan ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate “imminent, irreparable harm” that would justify an emergency intervention.

In a 10-page decision, Judge Chutkan acknowledged the Democrats’ concerns about Musk’s broad and unchecked influence over executive agencies but ultimately ruled that the legal standard for an emergency injunction had not been met.

“The possibility that Defendants may take actions that irreparably harm Plaintiffs is not enough,” the ruling stated. “A plaintiff must demonstrate ‘a clear and present need for extraordinary equitable relief to prevent
harm.'”

The attorneys general warned that DOGE’s efforts could lead to mass firings, termination of government contracts worth hundreds of millions, and the transfer of sensitive federal data to outside servers controlled by Musk and his team. They alleged that DOGE had already begun placing federal employees on leave, restructuring agency operations, and interfering with federal regulations without clear legal authority.

However, the court found that these claims, while alarming, lacked concrete evidence of imminent damage. Chutkan ruled that while Musk’s appointment raised constitutional questions, speculation about possible future harm was insufficient to justify an immediate block on DOGE’s operations.

The legal battle stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, establishing DOGE. The new agency, designed to eliminate waste and streamline operations across the executive branch, is led by Musk, who serves as a “special government employee” and senior advisor to the president.

Since its formation, DOGE has quickly moved to exert control over various federal departments, reportedly canceling unnecessary government contracts, suspending redundant personnel, and consolidating administrative functions. The administration argues that these reforms will save taxpayers billions and improve the efficiency of government agencies long plagued by bureaucratic bloat.

Opponents, however, claim the effort is an unconstitutional power grab. The Democratic attorneys general contend that Musk, never confirmed by the Senate, lacks the legal authority to make sweeping personnel and financial decisions that typically require congressional oversight.

While Tuesday’s ruling is a victory for Musk and the Trump administration, the legal fight is not over. Judge Chutkan acknowledged that the plaintiffs had raised a “colorable Appointments Clause claim” and signaled that deeper constitutional questions would need to be addressed as the case moves forward.

For now, however, DOGE remains operational, and Musk will continue his aggressive overhaul of the federal workforce. The judge ordered both sides to submit a proposed briefing schedule by February 19.