Here’s an analysis of the Supreme Court’s order in SSA v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) (June 6, 2025). You can read the full order by clicking here.

Background

  • Executive Order: On January 20, 2025, the President established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to modernize federal technology and improve efficiency. DOGE was to have broad access to agency records and IT systems, including the Social Security Administration (SSA).
  • Privacy Concerns: The SSA holds highly sensitive information—Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, bank details, and medical records of millions of Americans—protected by the Privacy Act of 1974.
  • Procedural History: DOGE demanded access to SSA’s data. Labor unions and a grassroots advocacy group sued, arguing this violated the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The District Court issued a preliminary injunction limiting DOGE’s access, requiring at least anonymization or special justification for non-anonymized data. The Fourth Circuit denied the government’s request for a stay. The government asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

  • Stay Granted: The Court granted the government’s application for a stay, allowing DOGE team members immediate access to the SSA records in question, pending the outcome of the appeal in the Fourth Circuit and any petition for Supreme Court review.
  • Dissent: Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented. Justice Kagan would have denied the application as well.
  • Factors for a Stay: The Court cited the standard four factors for emergency stays (likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, harm to other parties, and public interest).
  • Privacy Act Protections: The Privacy Act restricts federal agencies from disclosing personal data except for employees who need it for their duties. The SSA traditionally has strict protocols for access.
  • District Court’s Approach: The District Court’s injunction didn’t block DOGE entirely; it allowed access to anonymized/redacted data and required justification for non-anonymized access. The aim was to preserve privacy while litigation continued.
  • Government’s Arguments: The government claimed a need for unfettered access for efficiency and fraud detection but failed to provide clear reasons for urgency or to show irreparable harm in the absence of a stay.

The Dissent’s Reasoning

  • No Shown Irreparable Harm: Justice Jackson argued the government had not demonstrated it would suffer concrete or irreparable harm if DOGE’s access were temporarily limited.
  • Privacy Risks: She stressed the risk of grave privacy harms to millions if DOGE received immediate access to non-anonymized SSA data.
  • Judicial Process: The dissent criticized the Court for granting emergency relief without the usual standards, suggesting it undermined both privacy protections and respect for lower courts’ judgments.
  • Systemic Concerns: Jackson warned this signals a double standard—government agencies receive special treatment on the emergency docket, eroding trust in judicial impartiality.

What This Means

  • Practical Effect: DOGE can now access sensitive SSA data without the preliminary safeguards imposed by the lower courts, unless and until the Fourth Circuit or Supreme Court rules otherwise.
  • Legal Issues in Play: This case sits at the crossroads of executive power, privacy, and the judiciary’s role in checking agency action—especially when it comes to emergency relief.
  • Broader Implications: The dissent’s warning is about precedent: if the government can bypass privacy law safeguards with minimal justification, it may erode the protections the Privacy Act was designed to ensure.

Takeaway

The Court has temporarily sided with executive flexibility over privacy safeguards, pending further litigation. The dissent sees this as a troubling departure from established standards, sounding the alarm for future privacy and separation-of-powers disputes.

Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve birth injuries, brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries or severe burns in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.

Post A Comment