Elon Musk arrives for the 2022 Met Gala at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on May 2, 2022, in New York. (Photo by Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for The Met Museum/Vogue)
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Monday appeared skeptical of the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Trump administration that would bar Elon Musk and DOGE from accessing federal agency data and firing federal employees.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan repeatedly questioned whether the plaintiffs had “concrete” evidence of imminent harm necessary for the “extraordinary” relief they sought, indicating she was not inclined to grant the request. At one point in the hourlong hearing, Chutkan referred to the plaintiffs’ request as an apparent “prophylactic TRO,” which she said is “not allowed.”
However, the hearing did not seem to go particularly well for the Justice Department either, as Chutkan seemed incredulous when the DOJ’s attorney claimed that Musk had “no formal or actual authority to make any government decisions.”
The case stems from a lawsuit filed last week by a coalition of 14 states claiming that President Donald Trump’s grant of sweeping power to Musk and his associates at DOGE violated the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause by delegating “virtually unchecked authority” to the tech billionaire without proper legal authority from Congress or “meaningful supervision of his activities.”
The suit, which names as defendants Trump, Musk, and DOGE, further asserts that the executive branch lacks the authority to unilaterally create or dismantle a federal agency.
“As a result, he has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of the separation of powers,” the plaintiffs wrote in the complaint. “Framers of the Constitution crafted the Appointments Clause to protect against such tyranny in our system of government. The Appointments Clause was designed to buttress the separation of powers in two ways: first by requiring that Congress create an office before the President can fill it, and second by requiring that the Senate confirm a nominee to an office created by law.”
But the plaintiffs’ attorney, Anjana Samant, was met with reluctance when pressed to show how the plaintiff states were going to suffer imminent harm. The states’ attorney began citing to news report about DOGE’s activities before she was abruptly cut off by Chutkan.
“The courts cannot act based on news reports,” the judge said. She added that just because the news says something is going to happen, that information “cannot form the basis of a TRO.”
Samant argued that they would be immediately affected by losing federal funding, specifically citing money earmarked for education in New Mexico, but Chutkan responded by asking how the state would suffer “irreparable harm” if, after hearing arguments on the merits, the court ordered the government to continue its funding and reinstitute any contracts it cut.
“I’m not seeing it so far,” Chutkan said of the state’s proposed reasoning for a TRO.
Shortly after the attorney for the DOJ, Joshua Gardner, began his argument, Chutkan asked whether he could confirm the plaintiffs’ claim that thousands of federal employees had been fired last week. Gardner responded by saying he was unable to “independently confirm that,” which Chutkan found surprising.
“The firing of thousands of federal employees is not a small thing. You haven’t been able to learn if that’s true?” she asked.
Gardner argued that it was not pertinent to the current issue before the court, but Chutkan disagreed, saying she would find it relevant and also asked the government if they were planning any mass terminations in the next two weeks.
The Justice Department also took issue with the plaintiffs’ claims about Musk, arguing that he has no actual authority within the government.
“I think you stretch too far,” Chutkan replied. “I disagree with you there.”
As the hearing drew to a close, Chutkan asked Samant whether there was any precedent for a court granting a TRO based on an alleged Appointments Clause violation. Samant responded by saying the case was “factually a one-of-a-kind situation” as the government had “never experienced this kind of wielding of power.”
While seeming hesitant to grant the states’ immediate request for relief, Chutkan also seemed to view the plaintiffs’ merits arguments more favorably, indicating they could find themselves in a better position as the litigation unfolds, particularly when it comes to Musk’s secretive power-wielding and “access to the entire workings of the federal government.”
“This is essentially a private citizen directing an organization that’s not a federal agency that has access to the entire workings of the federal government to hire, fire, slash contracts, terminate programs, all without any congressional oversight,” she said.
Chutkan said she will try to issue an order within the next 24 hours.
