Supreme Court Grants DOGE Access to Social Security Data, Withholds Internal Records Amid Privacy Concerns

In a significant decision on June 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), allowing it access to sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) data while ongoing litigation continues. This 6-3 decision, divided along ideological lines, also temporarily blocked DOGE from releasing internal documents to watchdog groups, raising concerns about transparency and privacy.

Background: DOGE’s Controversial Mandate

Established by President Donald Trump through an executive order in January 2025, DOGE aims to modernize federal operations and eliminate inefficiencies. Initially led by Elon Musk, who stepped down on May 30, DOGE has been at the center of debates over its expansive authority and access to personal data.

Legal Challenges and Lower Court Rulings

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had issued an injunction limiting DOGE’s access to SSA records, citing potential violations of the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The injunction required DOGE to delete any previously obtained personal data and restricted access to anonymized information, contingent upon staff undergoing proper training and background checks.

Supreme Court’s Decision and Dissent

The Supreme Court’s unsigned order lifted the injunction, permitting DOGE to access SSA records, including Social Security numbers, medical histories, and financial data. The majority did not provide a detailed rationale. However, the dissenting justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—expressed strong objections. Justice Jackson warned that the decision poses “grave privacy risks for millions of Americans” and criticized the lack of demonstrated necessity for such access.

Implications and Ongoing Concerns

Advocacy groups and labor unions have raised alarms about the potential misuse of sensitive data and the precedent set by the Court’s decision. Democracy Forward, representing the plaintiffs, emphasized the risks to Americans’ privacy and the need for stringent oversight. The legal battle continues as the case proceeds in lower courts, with the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing DOGE to operate with expanded access in the interim.

As DOGE moves forward with its mandate, the balance between governmental efficiency and individual privacy rights remains a contentious issue, with significant implications for federal data handling practices.