A federal judge has once again ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can keep sorting through sensitive data, despite protests from some of Washington’s most powerful unions.
The Hill reported that on Friday, Judge John D. Bates rejected an injunction request from labor unions that sought to block DOGE from accessing personal data across multiple federal agencies, citing a lack of proof that harm was imminent or unavoidable.
The unions, led by the AFL-CIO, filed suit months ago to stop DOGE-connected employees from handling government-stored personal information, including medical history, financial records, and Social Security details—material that, in normal times, would require a pretty tight security clearance or a really good reason.
This is now the third time the unions have struck out. Two prior requests for temporary restraining orders also failed, and the court continues to allow DOGE's access to go on uninterrupted while litigation plays out.
In his ruling, Judge Bates acknowledged his unease over what he called the “sensitivity” of the material in question. But, crucially, he noted that no solid evidence was presented showing that DOGE affiliates are at risk of misusing or leaking the data.
"Without irreparable harm," Bates wrote, "a preliminary injunction cannot issue." That’s a pretty airtight legal principle—and ironically, also a reminder that being upset isn't the same as being right in the eyes of the law.
While not exactly comfortable with his own decision, Bates signaled he's watching closely. He warned that his concern about the nature of the data remains "grave" and pledged to act if the unions eventually prove their point in the full case.
This latest ruling keeps DOGE’s access intact—for now—specifically at the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, which are packed floor-to-ceiling with sensitive records on American citizens.
The union lawsuit, filed in February, is part of a broader resistance campaign popping up in multiple federal courts across the U.S. against DOGE’s ever-growing role in handling personally identifiable information.
Last week, in yet another related action, a different federal judge ordered the government to produce a report detailing DOGE’s access to data at the Office of Personnel Management. That case also came courtesy of the AFL-CIO, which is fighting this on every front.
DOGE, for all of its buzzword-heavy titles and promises of “efficiency,” seems to be raising red flags across ideological lines—though curiously, most of the media won’t cover that part. If Republicans had dreamed up DOGE, we’d all know its acronym by heart already.
Some might remember that earlier this month, the Supreme Court allowed DOGE to keep sifting through sensitive records at the Social Security Administration, pausing a lower court's injunction request from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
Bates, for his part, has experience with politically hot cases. He’s weighed in on lawsuits involving former President Donald Trump, including one where he ordered government websites to be restored and another kicking an executive order to the curb.
Love or hate the guy, Bates tends to make rulings that err on procedure more than politics, though the outcomes still end up front-page material. Here, his decision relies purely on legal thresholds, not agency philosophy or public discomfort.
At the heart of the matter is whether DOGE’s operations pose a real risk to the public’s private information, or whether this is just bureaucratic turf warfare dressed up with courtroom drama.
With emergency relief now denied for the third time, Judge Bates asked both sides to work together on a timeline for moving the case toward a summary judgment—meaning the real legal fireworks are still ahead.
If the unions can finally prove DOGE has handled sensitive data recklessly or illegally, the judge may flip the script. But if no evidence shows misuse, even the gravest concerns won’t reshape his decision.