Federal court maintains restrictions on DOGE's access to sensitive Social Security data

In the United States, a federal appeals court recently confirmed a ruling from U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander that imposes strict limitations on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, regarding their access to the Social Security Administration's systems. The case was initiated by a coalition of labor unions and retirees who raised concerns about potential violations of privacy laws and the risks associated with sensitive data security amidst DOGE's actions. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made the decision with a 9-6 vote, emphasizing the need for stringent protection of the personal information of millions of Americans. Judge Hollander's preliminary injunction allowed DOGE personnel to access redacted or anonymized data only, contingent on their completion of training and background checks. Furthermore, to ensure compliance with privacy regulations, Hollander ordered DOGE to eliminate any personally identifiable information they may have previously gathered and prohibited any modifications to existing Social Security computerized codes. The ruling reflects considerable public concern for privacy and security, especially given the sensitive nature of the data involved. During the proceedings, DOGE's attorneys argued that the obligation to anonymize data was too great a burden and could obstruct the government's efforts to identify Social Security fraud. However, despite the agency's claims for broader access to sensitive records, Judge Robert B. King, writing for the majority on the appellate court, highlighted the potential risks associated with granting DOGE unrestricted access. He pointed out that such access would compromise the confidential information of virtually every American, including details about mental health, medical records related to disability, and family and school records. The majority opinion underscored the expectation that citizens trust that their sensitive data would be diligently protected by governmental entities. In contrast, Appellate Judge Julius Richardson, who dissented, contended that the matter should not have been decided by the entire panel of judges, suggesting that a smaller three-judge group would have been more appropriate. He also argued that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they had experienced direct harm from DOGE's actions, contending that their concerns about potential harm were abstract rather than concrete.