Trump's emergency application in US Supreme Court: Let Musk's Doge access social security data

US President Donald Trump continued to strengthen the power of his ‘First Buddy’, Elon Musk, and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as he pushed for them to access Social Security Data of ordinary people. On Friday, Trump asked the US Supreme Court to give DOGE access to sensitive records of the Social Security Administration.

D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, described the petition as an “emergency application,” the court docket states. “The application presents a now-familiar theme: a district court has issued sweeping injunctive relief without legal authority to do so, in ways that inflict ongoing, irreparable harm on urgent federal priorities and stymie the executive branch’s functions.”

In recent weeks, the administration has filed a barrage of such applications. Some of these applications defend Trump’s crackdown on immigration and his efforts to remove birthright citizenship. Several of them await decisions from the justices, who are also set to hear arguments on May 15 on the scope of permissible injunctions in challenges to President Trump’s efforts to do away with birthright citizenship.

Trump’s disdain for lower courts

Trump and his supporters often complain bitterly about lower court judges, who have blocked many of his initiatives. Last month, Judge Ellen L. Hollander, of the US District Court for the District of Maryland, imposed strict restrictions on access to the records in light of the agency’s “abiding commitment to the privacy and confidentiality of the personal information entrusted to it by the American people.”

Judge Hollander argued that the agency could provide the DOGE team with access to “redacted or anonymised data and records,” but only after they receive training on privacy laws and policies. She maintained that the members will be subjected to background investigations and will only gain access after they satisfy other requirements.

Meanwhile, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected the administration’s request to pause the judge’s injunction. The Supreme Court later ordered the challengers, two labour unions and an advocacy group, to respond to the administration’s application by May 12.

What are the two sides saying?

In the court docket, Sauer wrote that Judge Hollander, who was appointed by former US President Barack Obama, had exceeded her authority. “The district court is forcing the executive branch,” he wrote, “to stop employees charged with modernising government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court’s judgment, those employees do not ‘need’ such access.”

“The government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs,” he added. However, it is important to note that some other judges issued similar rulings in lawsuits challenging Musk’s incursions into government records.

Some lawyers argued that the Social Security Administration’s data system could be used as an aid for the Trump administration’s broader crackdown on immigration. “Intrusion into the personal affairs of millions of Americans — absent an adequate explanation for the need to do so — is not in the public interest,” especially because the agency “has long communicated to the public its commitment to privacy,” Judge Hollander wrote in her ruling.

“To be sure, intrusion into the personal affairs of millions of Americans — absent an adequate explanation for the need to do so — is not in the public interest,” especially because the agency “has long communicated to the public its commitment to privacy,” she added.

Meanwhile, Sauer told the Supreme Court that Judge Hollander should not be allowed to interfere in the executive branch’s operations. “The district court’s flawed injunction,” Sauer wrote, “forecloses the executive branch from carrying out the pressing priorities of modernizing government information systems and ferreting out fraud, waste, and abuse — all at the behest of plaintiffs who gave their information to the agencies with the knowledge that other government employees may access their data.”

Hence, it will be interesting to see which way the apex court will tilt.

With inputs from agencies.