Judge Blocks DOGE From Treasury Records

The Treasury Department, Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Department of Education are enjoined from disclosing personal identifying information (PII) with Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) affiliates, a federal judge ordered.

In American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent (2025 WL 582063), U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge Deborah Boardman issued a memorandum opinion and an accompanying order March 24 granting a motion for preliminary injunction filed by a group of national labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals.

The petitioners first alleged in their original February 10 complaint that the federal agencies unlawfully shared their PII with DOGE in violation of the Privacy Act. Their preliminary injunction motion, filed a month later, asked the court to enjoin the three agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act from their data sharing agreements with DOGE.

Boardman’s prior temporary restraining order only applied to OPM and the Education Department. The motion asked for Treasury to also be barred from allowing DOGE affiliates access to its payment processing systems. Claiming the agencies’ actions permitting record disclosures are “unlawful, arbitrary and capricious,” the petitioners argued they would suffer “imminent and irreparable injury” without a preliminary injunction.

As explained in Boardman’s near-70-page opinion on Monday, she agreed the plaintiffs have demonstrated that they: 1) are likely to succeed on the merits, 2) would be harmed if the agencies are not enjoined, and 3) the balance of the equities and public interest favors preliminary injunction.

Regarding the alleged APA violations by Treasury under Secretary Scott Bessent, two DOGE affiliates were given access to systems with payment records containing Social Security numbers, names, addresses, and banking details. According to the government, the agencies were not required to obtain consent from the plaintiffs. The access fell under the so-called need-to-know exception, the defense argued.

“In fact, the government takes the position that the DOGE affiliates’ access to records containing the plaintiffs’ PII is not only lawful, but it is necessary for them to do their jobs,” wrote Boardman. Per the government’s view, this is in line with DOGE’s mission to modernize the Treasury Department.

“What the record does not reveal,” the judge countered, “is why the DOGE affiliates need access to the PII within those payment systems to modernize technology.” (emphasis in original)

The judge, unconvinced that the access was necessary, determined that the disclosure of private information would persist absent an injunction. “This invasion of the plaintiffs’ privacy and the intrusion upon their seclusion is neither speculative nor remote; it is actual and imminent,” the opinion read. Furthermore, preliminary injunction does not impede President Trump from “effectuating” his administration’s policies, it concluded.

After Boardman issued the order, the government promptly filed a motion for a stay pending appeal. The motion said the district court lacked jurisdiction because the petitioners “have not alleged a concrete harm.” Data-related agency actions are not reviewable under the APA since it does “not provide oversight” in such matters, according to the government.

In their reply, the plaintiffs urged the court to deny the motion. Otherwise, DOGE “may access million of Americans’ PII for reasons they have never been able to explain,” they said. “Defendants cannot point to any actual need for DOGE affiliates to access this information and therefore cannot possibly be harmed by an order preventing that access.”