The Supreme Court just delivered a double victory for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that’s got the left fuming and conservatives nodding in approval.
In a pair of 6-3 rulings on Friday, the court sided with DOGE, granting access to Social Security Administration data while shielding the agency from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) demands.
The Washington Examiner reported that the court ruled in DOGE’s favor, emphasizing “access to the agency records” necessary for the department’s work, a decision that promises to modernize an often clunky system.
But not everyone’s cheering—unions like the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the American Federation of Teachers sued, fretting over privacy violations under laws like the Privacy Act.
Their concerns aren’t baseless, but let’s be real: if we want efficiency, someone’s got to crunch the numbers, and DOGE seems poised to do just that without turning personal data into a public parade.
Then there’s the FOIA ruling, where the Supreme Court decided DOGE isn’t bound by public records laws, sending the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
This came after a district court ordered DOGE to release documents to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), only for Chief Justice John Roberts to put the brakes on that demand last month.
CREW argued DOGE holds “substantial independent authority” and should be transparent, but the Justice Department countered that DOGE is merely a presidential advisory body—hardly the rogue outfit critics paint it as.
The Supreme Court agreed with the government, noting that the district court’s discovery order on internal recommendations “was not appropriately tailored” and raised serious separation of powers issues.
They doubled down, stressing that judicial restraint is crucial when poking into executive branch communications, a reminder that not every fishing trip—pardon the pun—deserves a catch, as Solicitor General D. John Sauer aptly called CREW’s probe a “fishing expedition.”
Turns out, the court isn’t keen on letting activist groups turn internal deliberations into headline fodder, and frankly, that’s a win for keeping government focused on governing, not gossip.
The liberal wing of the court, predictably, dissented in both cases, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson lamenting the government’s “urgency” as merely dodging the litigation process.
Her point about patience has some merit, but let’s not kid ourselves—delaying DOGE’s work to appease endless legal challenges smells more like obstruction than justice, especially when the stakes are cutting bureaucratic fat.
These rulings, while a blow to progressive calls for unchecked transparency, strike a balance: they empower DOGE to tackle inefficiency while reminding us that not every government memo needs to be a public spectacle.
After all, sometimes the best way to drain the swamp is to keep the waders out of sight.