The Trump administration achieved a significant victory in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, with a ruling that upheld the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to records from the Social Security Administration (SSA).
The court, sitting en banc, overturned a preliminary injunction issued by Maryland District Court Judge Ellen Hollander in April 2025. This injunction had prohibited DOGE personnel from accessing sensitive SSA data. In response, the Trump administration appealed the district court’s decision and sought a stay from the Supreme Court after the 4th Circuit denied its motion for a stay pending appeal. The Supreme Court granted the stay in June, and the 4th Circuit conducted oral arguments on the case in September.
The 4th Circuit issued some background regarding the case:
Three organizations representing a combined seven million Americans sued to prevent DOGE from accessing their members’ personally identifiable information. When the case was filed and in the original preliminary injunction proceedings, plaintiffs’ theory of the case was not that DOGE had misused the information or disclosed it (accidentally or otherwise) to malicious actors. Instead, plaintiffs argued that handing over non-anonymized and highly sensitive information to DOGE was itself unlawful.
In tossing out the district court’s order, the 4th Circuit examined the four requirements needed for an injunction:
- likely success
- irreparable harm
- balance of equities
- public interest
The majority concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm requirement. They reasoned that damages could potentially be obtained later under the Privacy Act, and that permanent injunctive relief might subsequently rectify the situation. Therefore, they determined that immediate relief was not warranted at this time.
There’s an additional aspect to this matter that is worth mentioning: the 4th Circuit actually revised its own wording from a prior DOGE decision (American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent). Without getting overly complicated, in that instance, the court had delved too deeply into its analysis, and now, in Friday’s decision, it confirmed the fundamental four-factor test mentioned earlier.
It’s important to highlight that the ruling was somewhat divided, featuring several concurrences and dissents. The appellate judges hold differing views regarding the matters of standing and irreparable harm, as well as the implications of the Supreme Court’s stay.
Ultimately, this represents a solid procedural victory for the Trump administration. The case will be sent back to the district court, where the substantive issues are still under litigation. We will continue to monitor the situation and will report on any significant updates.
