Judge denies request for a restraining order by 14 states, including California, against DOGE

A federal judge denied, on February 18, the request by a coalition of 14 states, including California, for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against tech billionaire Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Judge Tanya Chutkan acknowledged that DOGE’s unpredictable actions have caused significant confusion and uncertainty for the plaintiffs, their agencies, and residents.

“But the “possibility” that Defendants may take actions that irreparably harm Plaintiffs “is not enough,” said Chutkan in the ruling.

Evidence doesn’t meet legal standard for emergency relief

In recent weeks, DOGE has accessed the IRS and Treasury’s payment system, reduced the federal workforce, and made cuts to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Education.

The attorneys general filed a proposed TRO to stop Musk and DOGE defendants from accessing, copying, or transferring data from federal agencies like the Office of Personnel Management, Education, and Labor.

In addition, the proposal requested DOGE to stop firing or placing employees on leave within these agencies.

The court noted that to grant a TRO, the plaintiffs must prove imminent, irreparable harm, but their evidence fell short.

“Plaintiffs ask the court to take judicial notice of widespread media reports that DOGE has taken or will soon take certain actions, such as mass terminations. But these reports cannot substitute for “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint” that “clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result,” said the judge in the ruling.

Chutkan said that general harm to employees or institutions doesn’t meet the legal standard for emergency relief, which requires specific, immediate harm to the plaintiffs.

The court found no strong link between the defendants’ actions and direct harm to the plaintiffs.

‘Musk is not the DOGE service administrator’

The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs did not prove the immediate harm required for a TRO, even though they argued that Musk’s actions violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight,” said the judge in the court document.

Chutkan ruled, however, that in these circumstances, it must be indisputable that the court acts within the bounds of its authority.

The day before the ruling, the Whitehouse submitted an affidavit stating Musk ‘is not the U.S. DOGE service administrator’ and can only advise the president and communicate the president’s directives.

The administrator of DOGE was not provided.