Image: Koshiro K/Shutterstock.com
Following are key parts of a federal judge’s decision to issue a temporary restraining order against DOGE officials continuing to have access to federal personnel records at OPM, saying that employee’s privacy rights outweigh the need of those officials to have access to that information for any purposes related to carrying out Trump administration executive orders on the federal workforce. The case also involves similar claims regarding access to Education Department records.
This lawsuit is one of several filed by plaintiffs who seek to enjoin federal government agencies from disclosing records with their sensitive personal information to government personnel affiliated with the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”).
The plaintiffs in this suit are unions and membership organizations representing current and former federal employees and federal student aid recipients and six military veterans who have received federal benefits or student loans. . . The plaintiffs allege that the agencies unlawfully granted access to records that contain their personally identifiable information (“PII”) to personnel implementing the President’s Executive Orders on the DOGE agenda.
. . .
The plaintiffs allege that Education and OPM have granted DOGE affiliates unauthorized access to their sensitive personal information. The information includes bank account numbers; Social Security numbers; dates of birth; physical and email addresses; disability status; income and asset information; marital status; demographic information; employment records such as performance appraisals and personnel actions; and information about family members, such as their financial status, dates of birth, and addresses. The DOGE affiliates who have been granted unauthorized access to the plaintiffs’ records at OPM and Education could use the information available to them to create a comprehensive picture of the plaintiffs’ familial, professional, or financial affairs.
. . .
The plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their APA claim that Education and OPM took final agency actions “not in accordance with law.” Specifically, the plaintiffs have shown that Education and OPM likely violated the Privacy Act by disclosing their personal information to DOGE affiliates without their consent.
The Privacy Act prohibits agencies from “disclos[ing] any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains.” The Privacy Act defines a “record” as “any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph.”
. . .
None of these workplace reform measures appears to require an OPM employee to access records with the sensitive personal information of current and formal federal employees. Yet some OPM personnel who are implementing the directives in the Workforce Executive Order apparently have access to “sensitive OPM records systems” that contain this information, which includes the PII of some plaintiffs. The government never explains why OPM personnel need access to these sensitive records to implement the workplace reform measures in the Workforce Executive Order . . . the current record does not show that DOGE affiliates at OPM have a need for the plaintiffs’ PII in the performance of their duties. The plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that OPM’s disclosure of their records to DOGE affiliates (other than Hogan) does not fall within the need-to know exception and thus violates the Privacy Act.
. . .
The plaintiffs have made a clear showing that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief. DOGE affiliates have been granted access to systems of record that contain some of the plaintiffs’ most sensitive data—Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home addresses, income and assets, citizenship status, and disability status—and their access to this trove of personal information is ongoing. There is no reason to believe their access to this information will end anytime soon because the government believes their access is appropriate.
Shutdown Meter Ticking Up a Bit
Judge Backs Suit against Firings of Probationers, but Won’t Order Reinstatements
Focus Turns to Senate on Effort to Block Trump Order against Unions
TSP Adds Detail to Upcoming Roth Conversion Feature
White House to Issue Rules on RIF, Disciplinary Policy Changes
Hill Dems Question OPM on PSHB Program After IG Slams Readiness
See also,
Legal: How to Challenge a Federal Reduction in Force (RIF) in 2025
The Best Ages for Federal Employees to Retire
Alternative Federal Retirement Options; With Chart
Primer: Early out, buyout, reduction in force (RIF)
Retention Standing, ‘Bump and Retreat’ and More: Report Outlines RIF Process