US tries to keep DOGE and Musk work secret in appeal of court-ordered discovery
The petition argues that discovery is unnecessary to assess the plaintiff states’ claims. “Plaintiffs allege a violation of the Appointments Clause and USDS’s statutory authority on the theory that USDS and Mr. Musk are directing decision-making by agency officeholders,” it said. “Those claims present pure questions of law that can be resolved—and rejected—on the basis of plaintiffs’ complaint. In particular, precedent establishes that the Appointments Clause turns on proper appointment of officeholders; it is not concerned with the de facto influence over those who hold office.”
States: Discovery can confirm Musk’s role at DOGE
The states’ lawsuit alleged that “President Trump has delegated virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities. As a result, he has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of the separation of powers.”
States argued that discovery “may confirm what investigative reporting has already indicated: Defendants Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (‘DOGE’) are directing actions within federal agencies that have profoundly harmed the States and will continue to harm them.”
Amy Gleason, the person the White House claims is running DOGE instead of Musk, has reportedly been working simultaneously at the Department of Health and Human Services since last month.
“Defendants assert that Mr. Musk is merely an advisor to the President, with no authority to direct agency action and no role at DOGE,” the states’ filing said. “The public record refutes that implausible assertion. But only Defendants possess the documents and information that Plaintiffs need to confirm public reporting and identify which agencies Defendants will target next so Plaintiffs can seek preliminary relief and mitigate further harm.”
“Notably, Plaintiffs seek no emails, text messages, or other electronic communications at this stage, meaning Defendants will not need to sort through such exchanges for relevance or possible privilege,” the states said. “The documents that Plaintiffs do seek—planning, implementation, and organizational documents—are readily available to Defendants and do not implicate the same privilege concerns.”
Discovery related to DOGE and Musk’s conduct
Chutkan wrote that the plaintiffs’ “document requests and interrogatories generally concern DOGE’s and Musk’s conduct in four areas: (1) eliminating or reducing the size of federal agencies; (2) terminating or placing federal employees on leave; (3) cancelling, freezing, or pausing federal contracts, grants, or other federal funding; and (4) obtaining access, using, or making changes to federal databases or data management systems.”
US tries to keep DOGE and Musk work secret in appeal of court-ordered discovery Read More »