The suddenly popular law everyone is referencing due to "DOGE"
Judges are contemplating whether enduring limits on government authority remain effective when the government appears indifferent to adhering to these regulations.
TroibNews 
An infrequently applied 50-year-old law designed to safeguard sensitive information about millions of Americans is emerging as a last-ditch effort to counter Elon Musk's attempts to reform the federal government.
Since January, at least a dozen lawsuits have invoked the Privacy Act of 1974 to challenge Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing tax records, student loan accounts, and other personal data.
The Watergate-influenced law is intended to stop agencies from sharing sensitive information with unauthorized individuals, even internally within the federal government — a move critics claim DOGE is compelling agencies to undertake. This legal measure has materialized as one of the few options available to state attorneys general, labor unions, and various associations seeking to mitigate the encroachments of DOGE.
Historically, both Republican and Democratic administrations have strived to comply with the Privacy Act — a law aimed at limiting federal power — and as such, its boundaries and enforceability are facing their first substantial scrutiny in court.
“There appears to be no precedent with similar facts,” Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee on the U.S. District Court of Maryland, wrote in her opinion temporarily halting DOGE’s access to educational and government personnel records. “This case involves the alleged unauthorized disclosure of millions of records. Even under existing precedent, this appears to be unlawful.”
As the legal proceedings continue, it remains uncertain whether the Privacy Act will endure, especially when the government itself seems apathetic about adhering to its stipulations.
Boardman is one of two judges who have issued temporary blocks on DOGE’s data access. Four other judges have determined that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated harm — a common obstacle for lawsuits that could challenge the Privacy Act’s effectiveness.
No judges have yet issued a definitive ruling on whether DOGE is in violation of the law. However, their temporary rulings underscore the anxiety felt by many government watchdogs as Musk's initiatives challenge long-established standards.
“In normal times, agencies are the primary enforcement mechanism for federal laws that address how agencies are structured and should behave,” said John Davisson, director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which is suing the Trump administration over alleged Privacy Act violations. “These obligations are taken seriously, and when that drops away, when you suddenly have a top-down policy of non-enforcement or disregard for these statutes, you have to fall back on the alternative methods of enforcement, and that is the courts.”
The Privacy Act was enacted in response to fears that centralized access to personal information could lead to governmental abuses of power amid concerns raised in the wake of Watergate and the rise of computer technology. Since then, the government has amassed vast amounts of data on individuals, covering aspects such as income, citizenship status, and addresses.
“They worried about overweening government power that needed to be constrained,” remarked Danielle Citron, a University of Virginia law professor, regarding the law’s authors. “This is the scenario that would get them out of bed and say, ‘This is what we worried about.’”
Federal agencies have also allocated resources for compliance with the Privacy Act, including explicit guidance on which parties are permitted to access the data.
To adhere to Privacy Act requirements, for instance, the General Services Administration awarded a $34 million contract to external vendors for identity verification in 2021, instead of directly accessing the Social Security Administration's resources.
Critics of DOGE's data acquisition assert that the Trump administration is directly contravening the law, as DOGE essentially acts as an external body accessing sensitive data.
“The government’s position, which the court did not agree with, was that a political appointee should in effect be able to access the information just as other authorized employees can,” said Kristin Woelfel, policy counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a progressive tech nonprofit.
The Trump administration contends that granting DOGE employees access to government databases does not breach the Privacy Act since those staff members are authorized under an executive order aimed at streamlining federal operations.
It appears to be employing strategies to justify its Privacy Act authority, including appointing DOGE personnel within agencies, raising legal questions for judges reviewing the data mining activities.
A senior White House official opined that the handful of judges' decisions support the administration's argument that it did not violate the Privacy Act.
"The legal experts can say what they want, but the courts are the ultimate deciders," the official stated in an email.
Even in the cases where judges have opted not to grant restraining orders, indicating that mere access to data does not inherently signify harm, the situation remains unresolved.
Temporary restraining orders require a more stringent standard, as plaintiffs must prove there would be “irreparable harm” without immediate intervention — more challenging to demonstrate when no physical injuries are involved. Nonetheless, core to all 12 cases is the central question of whether the law has been transgressed.
Critics of DOGE argue that the lack of transparency — to the extent that even government attorneys defending its access to data cannot articulate in court how staffers are using and protecting the information — has provided an edge to the government thus far.
The ambiguity has aided the Trump administration's legal representatives in asserting that concerns over data breaches, increased identity theft risks, and other possible violations stem from conjecture or misleading media portrayals of DOGE’s activities.
An anonymous student at the University of California submitted a declaration seeking to block DOGE’s access to student data, expressing anxiety that information about her family could be exploited for immigration enforcement.
D.C. District Court Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, rejected the request, stating that students provided no evidence “beyond sheer speculation” that DOGE staffers would misuse the data — a sentiment echoed by other judges.
However, legal representatives seeking to challenge DOGE via the Privacy Act remain optimistic that the discovery process will reveal evidence of the government's mishandling of sensitive information.
This phase, wherein the federal government would have to disclose its records, could uncover new insights into Musk's operations and how DOGE employees are managing the data of millions of Americans.
“It’s almost a certainty that we will identify in different quarters of the government specific harmful ways that the personal information involved here was misused,” stated Davisson from EPIC.
Frederick R Cook for TROIB News
Since January, at least a dozen lawsuits have invoked the Privacy Act of 1974 to challenge Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing tax records, student loan accounts, and other personal data.
The Watergate-influenced law is intended to stop agencies from sharing sensitive information with unauthorized individuals, even internally within the federal government — a move critics claim DOGE is compelling agencies to undertake. This legal measure has materialized as one of the few options available to state attorneys general, labor unions, and various associations seeking to mitigate the encroachments of DOGE.
Historically, both Republican and Democratic administrations have strived to comply with the Privacy Act — a law aimed at limiting federal power — and as such, its boundaries and enforceability are facing their first substantial scrutiny in court.
“There appears to be no precedent with similar facts,” Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee on the U.S. District Court of Maryland, wrote in her opinion temporarily halting DOGE’s access to educational and government personnel records. “This case involves the alleged unauthorized disclosure of millions of records. Even under existing precedent, this appears to be unlawful.”
As the legal proceedings continue, it remains uncertain whether the Privacy Act will endure, especially when the government itself seems apathetic about adhering to its stipulations.
Boardman is one of two judges who have issued temporary blocks on DOGE’s data access. Four other judges have determined that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated harm — a common obstacle for lawsuits that could challenge the Privacy Act’s effectiveness.
No judges have yet issued a definitive ruling on whether DOGE is in violation of the law. However, their temporary rulings underscore the anxiety felt by many government watchdogs as Musk's initiatives challenge long-established standards.
“In normal times, agencies are the primary enforcement mechanism for federal laws that address how agencies are structured and should behave,” said John Davisson, director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which is suing the Trump administration over alleged Privacy Act violations. “These obligations are taken seriously, and when that drops away, when you suddenly have a top-down policy of non-enforcement or disregard for these statutes, you have to fall back on the alternative methods of enforcement, and that is the courts.”
The Privacy Act was enacted in response to fears that centralized access to personal information could lead to governmental abuses of power amid concerns raised in the wake of Watergate and the rise of computer technology. Since then, the government has amassed vast amounts of data on individuals, covering aspects such as income, citizenship status, and addresses.
“They worried about overweening government power that needed to be constrained,” remarked Danielle Citron, a University of Virginia law professor, regarding the law’s authors. “This is the scenario that would get them out of bed and say, ‘This is what we worried about.’”
Federal agencies have also allocated resources for compliance with the Privacy Act, including explicit guidance on which parties are permitted to access the data.
To adhere to Privacy Act requirements, for instance, the General Services Administration awarded a $34 million contract to external vendors for identity verification in 2021, instead of directly accessing the Social Security Administration's resources.
Critics of DOGE's data acquisition assert that the Trump administration is directly contravening the law, as DOGE essentially acts as an external body accessing sensitive data.
“The government’s position, which the court did not agree with, was that a political appointee should in effect be able to access the information just as other authorized employees can,” said Kristin Woelfel, policy counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a progressive tech nonprofit.
The Trump administration contends that granting DOGE employees access to government databases does not breach the Privacy Act since those staff members are authorized under an executive order aimed at streamlining federal operations.
It appears to be employing strategies to justify its Privacy Act authority, including appointing DOGE personnel within agencies, raising legal questions for judges reviewing the data mining activities.
A senior White House official opined that the handful of judges' decisions support the administration's argument that it did not violate the Privacy Act.
"The legal experts can say what they want, but the courts are the ultimate deciders," the official stated in an email.
Even in the cases where judges have opted not to grant restraining orders, indicating that mere access to data does not inherently signify harm, the situation remains unresolved.
Temporary restraining orders require a more stringent standard, as plaintiffs must prove there would be “irreparable harm” without immediate intervention — more challenging to demonstrate when no physical injuries are involved. Nonetheless, core to all 12 cases is the central question of whether the law has been transgressed.
Critics of DOGE argue that the lack of transparency — to the extent that even government attorneys defending its access to data cannot articulate in court how staffers are using and protecting the information — has provided an edge to the government thus far.
The ambiguity has aided the Trump administration's legal representatives in asserting that concerns over data breaches, increased identity theft risks, and other possible violations stem from conjecture or misleading media portrayals of DOGE’s activities.
An anonymous student at the University of California submitted a declaration seeking to block DOGE’s access to student data, expressing anxiety that information about her family could be exploited for immigration enforcement.
D.C. District Court Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, rejected the request, stating that students provided no evidence “beyond sheer speculation” that DOGE staffers would misuse the data — a sentiment echoed by other judges.
However, legal representatives seeking to challenge DOGE via the Privacy Act remain optimistic that the discovery process will reveal evidence of the government's mishandling of sensitive information.
This phase, wherein the federal government would have to disclose its records, could uncover new insights into Musk's operations and how DOGE employees are managing the data of millions of Americans.
“It’s almost a certainty that we will identify in different quarters of the government specific harmful ways that the personal information involved here was misused,” stated Davisson from EPIC.
Frederick R Cook for TROIB News
