SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us supreme court
'Dangerous Power Grab' as Supreme Court Sides With DOGE on Social Security Data
"This action by six far-right justices is an affront to every principle of government transparency and the rule of law."
Jun 07, 2025
Defenders of Social Security are responding with critical anger to a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday that side with the Trump administration in a legal battle over access to sensitive data of tens of millions of Americans by the Department of Government Efficiency, the government-eviscerating agency first spearheaded by right-wing libertarian and mega-billionaire Elon Musk.
The unsigned emergency order from the court came in response to an emergency application from the Trump administration defending DOGE's ability to have access to Social Security databases that two labor unions, alongside the Alliance for Retired Americans, had file a legal suit to protect. By its ruling, the Supreme Court stayed a lower federal court's ruling that said DOGE must "disgorge" and "delete" any of the data it accessed or downloaded from the agency files.
While the underlying case plays out, DOGE is now authorized to retain the data and access to the information, which critics say cannot be entrusted to the newly-created department and unvetted personnel who control it.
"This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," said the coalition behind the challenge in response to the decision. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward."
"If Americans' personal Social Security data is misused or abused by this administration, the Supreme Court's majority will have been fully complicit."
While the majority ruling was unsigned, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elana Kagan backed what was described as a "blistering" dissent, authored by Jackson, countering the determination and warning against continued access for DOGE while the case makes its way through the lower courts.
"On the one hand, there is a repository of millions of Americans' legally protected, highly sensitive information that—if improperly handled or disseminated—risks causing significant harm," she wrote. "On the other, there is the government's desire to ditch the usual protocols for accessing that data, before the courts have even determined whether DOGE's access is lawful."
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, called the majority's ruling "extremely troubling" for a host of reasons.
"We echo the concerns of the minority, as articulated by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, that the decision creates 'grave privacy risks' by giving DOGE 'unfettered data access — despite its failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards,'" said Richtman. "It is hard to justify the court's action, especially in light of the incompetent, reckless manner in which DOGE has already interfered with the operations of the Social Security Administration, prompting a spike in new Social Security claims by older people who fear the situation will only get worse."
Devon Ombres, senior director for Courts and Legal Policy at the center-left Center for American Progress, echoed those concerns.
"This action by six far-right justices is an affront to every principle of government transparency and the rule of law. DOGE has shown no need to review every American’s personal information, and the high court provides no explanation in granting it access," said Ombres. "Americans have no way to know how DOGE will use or misuse this information, nor what DOGE is or what it is doing. Shame on the court for rubber-stamping this administration’s lawlessness and further undermining the public’s trust in government, which President Trump has eroded."
Citing Musk, who recently left his position at DOGE and has been engaged in a high-profile spat with President Donald Trump in recent days, Richtman said the Tesla and SpaceX founder and world's richest man cannot be trusted, giving the lies he told about Social Security fraud that "undermined people's faith in the system."
"This hardly inspires confidence that DOGE has either the sense of ethics or public service to be entrusted with Americans' private data, leading us to believe that the court simply is abetting another dangerous power grab by the Executive branch," said Richtman. "If Americans' personal Social Security data is misused or abused by this administration, the Supreme Court's majority will have been fully complicit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Devastating Loss for Our Wild Places': Supreme Court Attacks Bedrock Environmental Law
"The Trump administration will treat this decision as an invitation to ignore environmental concerns as it tries to promote fossil fuels, kill off renewable energy, and destroy sensible pollution regulations."
May 29, 2025
In a 8-0 ruling on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court not only reversed a block on a proposed oil train in Utah but also narrowed a landmark federal environmental law, sparking intense alarm about what the ruling will mean for communities and all living things across the country.
"Today's decision undermines decades of legal precedent that told federal agencies to look before they leap when approving projects that could harm communities and the environment," said Earthjustice senior vice president of program Sam Sankar in a statement. "The Trump administration will treat this decision as an invitation to ignore environmental concerns as it tries to promote fossil fuels, kill off renewable energy, and destroy sensible pollution regulations."
Since the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law in 1970 by Republican then-President Richard Nixon, it has become a key target for GOP policymakers aligned with the planet-wrecking fossil fuel industry, including President Donald Trump, who swiftly took aim at the law after returning to office in January.
"We urgently need to strengthen laws like NEPA, not weaken or narrow them, so that we can prioritize the health of people over polluters and corporate greed."
NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for certain infrastructure projects. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit tossed both an EIS for the proposed Uinta Basin Railway and the U. S. Surface Transportation Board's approval of the project, which would connect Utah's oil fields to the national rail network.
After hearing arguments for Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County in December, the nation's highest court reversed that decision on Thursday, continuing a trend of rulings slammed by environmentalists as gifts to corporate polluters.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself without explanation. Politiconoted that "it followed a public pressure campaign from environmental groups and Democrats who argued his close connections to the owner of oil and gas producer Anschutz—which filed a brief in the case saying NEPA's scope was critical to developing oil and gas reserves—disqualified him."
Justice Brett Kavanagh delivered the opinion, joined by the other right-wingers who participated in the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, joined by the other two liberals.
Kavanaugh wrote for the majority that "the D. C. Circuit failed to afford the board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the Uinta Basin Railway."
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, refuses to join Kavanaugh's majority opinion, saying it "unnecessarily" grounds its analysis "largely in matters of policy." (It's clear that Kavanaugh wants to weaken NEPA's restrictions on energy permitting.) www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) May 29, 2025 at 10:09 AM
Environmental and public health advocates were quick to warn of the impacts of not only this 88-mile rail project, if completed, but also the decision more broadly.
"This decision is terrible news for the entire Colorado River Basin," said John Weisheit, conservation director at Living Rivers. "To avoid the pending collapse of the Colorado River, we have to immediately reduce water consumption by 25% and cut carbon emissions by 50% by the end of this decade. Our federal decision-makers must deny any project that counters these objectives. The Uinta Basin Railway unquestionably falls into that category and should never see the light of day."
Critics of the ruling are worried about increased oil extraction in Utah as well as additional refining in Gulf of Mexico communities.
"Regrettably, the Supreme Court has scored one for the oil companies who don't want you to look too closely at the harm their product will do to Black and Brown communities in Cancer Alley," said Sierra Club senior attorney Nathaniel Shoaff. "Our bedrock environmental laws, like NEPA, are meant to ensure people are protected from corporate polluters."
"Fossil fuel infrastructure projects do not exist in a vacuum and have far-reaching impacts on communities, especially those on the frontlines of climate change or those who face serious health harms from increased pollution," Shoaff stressed.
"The last thing we need is another climate bomb on wheels that the communities along its proposed route say they don't want."
Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney Wendy Park declared that "the last thing we need is another climate bomb on wheels that the communities along its proposed route say they don't want," and vowed to "keep fighting to make sure this railway is never built."
Park also looked beyond the train project, warning that "this disastrous decision to undermine our nation's bedrock environmental law means our air and water will be more polluted, the climate and extinction crises will intensify, and people will be less healthy."
WildEarth Guardians staff attorney Katherine Merlin similarly emphasized that "today's decision is a devastating loss for our wild places, our wild rivers, and for all of the human and nonhuman communities that depend on a clean environment and stable climate."
The ruling comes as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are working to boost planet-heating fossil fuels, ignoring scientists' warnings about the worsening climate emergency.
"After the hottest year on record, when the U.S. should be improving environmental safeguards and empowering frontline communities, this decision is a giant step backwards," said Ashfaq Khalfan, Oxfam America's director of climate justice. "Everyone deserves to live and work in communities with clean air and safe drinking water. We urgently need to strengthen laws like NEPA, not weaken or narrow them, so that we can prioritize the health of people over polluters and corporate greed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Legislating From the Bench,' Supreme Court Greenlights Trump Firing of Labor Regulators
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent that the president believes the 90-year precedent "should be either overruled or confined... And he has chosen to act on that belief—really, to take the law into his own hands."
May 22, 2025
In a decision that alarmed legal experts, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the reinstatement of two labor regulators fired by President Donald Trump in apparent violation of federal law intended to prevent such ousters for political reasons.
The Trump administration asked the high court—which has a right-wing supermajority—to block orders from the District Court for the District of Columbia against the president's removal of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Member Cathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Gwynne Wilcox.
An unsigned two-page opinion—from which the three liberals dissented—provides the Trump administration that relief, but the majority declined to take up the cases more fully, meaning they will play out U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Hillnoted that the move "leaves both agencies without a quorum required to conduct certain business in the meantime."
In her fiery dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that "for 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States... has stood as a precedent of this court. And not just any precedent. Humphrey's undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control."
While the MSPB and NLRB are the focus of this case, "there are many others," she continued. "The current president believes that Humphrey's should be either overruled or confined... And he has chosen to act on that belief—really, to take the law into his own hands."
"Our Humphrey's decision remains good law, and it forecloses both the president's firings and the court's decision to award emergency relief," Kagan added. "Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law."
Big, bad legal news from "the shadow docket." 6-3 overturning the stay in Wilcox, the NLRB case. Less than 2 pages of assertions that have been proven historically incorrect. A preview of expanding presidential power and allowing the Trump removals: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
[image or embed]
— Jed H. Shugerman (@jedshug.bsky.social) May 22, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern similarly stressed the significance of Thursday's development on social media, writing that "the Supreme Court just effectively overruled 90 years of precedent on the shadow docket, greenlighting Trump's firing of multimember agency leaders while their cases are pending—despite Congress' effort to protect them against removal. A huge decision."
"The Supreme Court goes out of its way to say that its order today does NOT allow Trump to remove members of the Federal Reserve because it is 'uniquely structured' and has a 'distinct history tradition,'" he noted. "I do not think those distinctions hold water."
The right-wing justices' opinion states that "Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris contend that arguments in this case necessarily implicate the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee."
"We disagree," the court's majority said. "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States."
Multiple other court watchers echoed Stern's take on social media.
They’re not only overturning precedent on the shadow docket, but ~deciding~ other cases in a non-binding (dicta) way to give cover for these actions. Today, this unnamed group of conservative justices, not even claiming this is “per curiam,” say that the Federal Reserve is different. Sure.
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) May 22, 2025 at 5:12 PM
"I don't mean to be a caricature, but this just isn't law. The Supreme Court is always making policy. But this is beyond," said Noah Rosenblum, a New York University associate law professor law, summarizing the decision. "'This dicta in an emergency order will reassure the markets but just, uh, trust us on the law here, OK, no we're not overruling Humphrey's yet, and when we do we'll spare the Fed.'"
Christine Kexel Chabot, a Marquette University associate law professor law, said: "The court is legislating from the bench: It has eliminated removal restrictions it finds unimportant while keeping those it finds too consequential to kill (the Fed). Article II provides an undifferentiated grant of 'the executive power,' not one that applies to the NLRB and excepts the Fed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular