Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Court declines to stay preliminary injunction pending government appeal in suit over PPI, (Mar 31, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

“The public interest lies in protecting the privacy rights of individuals who gave sensitive personal information to the federal government with the understanding that the government would protect this information from unlawful disclosure.”

The third time was not a charm regarding injunctive relief granted in a lawsuit brought in Maryland federal court by several unions and individual plaintiffs who sued the government alleging that the departments of Education, Treasury, and OPM unlawfully granted access to records containing their PPI to DOGE representatives. The defendants filed a notice of appeal regarding the preliminary injunction order issued by the court earlier in the same week and moved to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. The motion to stay was denied.

Preliminary injunction issued. Previously, the federal court found they had shown a likelihood they would succeed on their claim that the defendants violated the APA by not acting in accordance with the Privacy Act and that the ongoing disclosure of their PPI to government employees not authorized to access it constituted irreparable harm, which would continue without a preliminary injunction.

Now, on the motion to stay filed by the defendant, the court considered the four factors used when determining whether to stay an order pending appeal and, again, ruled against the defendants, who had argued that the would be likely to succeed on appeal because the plaintiffs lacked standing, had not challenge a reviewable final agency action, and were not likely to succeed on the merits. “The defendants made these same arguments twice before—once during the temporary restraining order briefing and then again during the preliminary injunction briefing. And twice, the Court rejected them,” the court explained. Rejecting the arguments a third time, the court stated: “These stale arguments are not grounds for a stay pending appeal.”

Consequence of unlawful actions. “The Court has found—and stands by its finding—that the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.” While the government argued that the injunction “impinges on the President’s broad authority over and responsibility for directing employees in important work to modernize federal government systems and identify fraud, waste, and abuse throughout the federal government,” the court was not swayed. If it does impinge in that way, the court explains, then “that is a direct consequence of the likely unlawful actions of the agency defendants. The President’s power to direct federal agencies to implement his agenda does not authorize the agencies to disregard the law.”

By entering a preliminary injunction, the court explained, it was “upholding the law, not, as the government says, ‘curtail[ing] the Executive Branch’s core duty to manage the day-to-day operations of its agencies.’”

Public interest in protection. “If an injunction curtails the management of the daily operations of the federal agencies,” the court explained, “that, too, is a direct consequence of the likely unlawful agency actions. The public interest lies in protecting the privacy rights of individuals who gave sensitive personal information to the federal government with the understanding that the government would protect this information from unlawful disclosure. The likely unauthorized disclosure of their information to DOGE affiliates breaches the public’s trust and is an unlawful government intrusion into these individuals’ private lives. The public interest does not favor a stay of the preliminary injunction.”

The case is No. DLB-25-0430.

News: LitigationNewsTrends Privacy ComputerFraudPrivacy PublicEmployees Procedure AgencyNews DOGE FedTracker LaborEmployment