The case also involves DOGE access to files held by the Education and Treasury departments. Image: BritCats Studio/Shutterstock.com
By: FEDweek StaffA federal appeals court has lifted an injunction against DOGE project employees having access to personal information on federal employees held by OPM, finding that a coalition of organizations including the NFFE union and NARFE likely do not have standing in court for their complaint.
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit further held that even if they have standing, the organizations did not show a “likelihood of success” in proving violations of the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act as the case proceeds before the lower judge. The case also involves DOGE access to files held by the Education and Treasury departments.
In issuing the injunction, the lower court had cited evidence that some DOGE officials were granted high-level access to OPM systems without any explanation of why they would need access to that information to perform their duties. Those files included employees’ electronic official personnel folders—which contain Social Security numbers and other personally identifiable information along with employment records—and the Enterprise Human Resources Integration Data Warehouse, which contains some of the same information.
However, the appeals court majority said that “It does not stretch the imagination to think that an employee tasked with modernizing an agency’s software and IT systems would require administrator-level access to those systems, including any internal databases, especially when conducting the initial survey of the agency’s technological ailments.”
The decision also said that the complaint did not show the kind of “concrete injury” required under the Privacy Act. “Each Plaintiff’s information is one row in various databases that are millions upon millions of rows long. In fact, Plaintiffs do not allege in their complaint that any particular row of information belonging to any particular Plaintiff has been examined at all,” it said.
It added: “Unauthorized knowledge of sensitive information is instead more closely shielded by other privacy torts . . . Yet those other privacy torts all require disclosure to the public at large, since they take aim at the reputational damage that can accompany publicity.”
Ruling on CFPB Job Cuts Could Affect Challenges to Other RIFs and Reorgs
OPM Calls Off Viewpoint Survey; Next Edition to be Revised
Several Federal Agencies Disavow Union Contracts, with More Likely to Follow
See also,
Should I be Shooting for a $1M TSP Balance? Depends…
What to Know About the New Federal Application Process
Attorney Schnitzer:
How to Challenge a Federal Reduction in Force (RIF) in 2025Attorney Schnitzer:
A Pre-RIF Checklist for Every Federal Employee, From a Federal Employment AttorneyTop 10 Provisions in the Big Beautiful Bill of Interest to Federal Employees
