Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PRIVACY—S.D.N.Y.: DOGE agent anonymity rejected in challenge to OPM data access, (Apr 3, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Government arguments that disclosure would risk harassment failed to overcome the strong public interest in knowing the identities of individuals granted access to sensitive federal personnel data.

The identities of individuals granted access to sensitive federal personnel records must be unsealed, a New York federal court has held, concluding that public access to that information is essential to understanding alleged violations of federal privacy law. The court rejected government arguments that anonymity is needed to protect those individuals from potential harassment and found that neither privacy nor safety concerns outweigh the strong presumption of transparency in judicial proceedings. The ruling granted a motion by federal employee unions and individual plaintiffs to remove confidentiality designations from the names of 16 individuals referred to in the litigation as “DOGE Agents,” and denied a related request by the government to continue filing materials with those identities redacted, directing that previously sealed filings be refiled on the public docket with the names unredacted (American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, No. 25cv1237 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2026)).

Federal data access. The underlying litigation challenges the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)’s decision to grant a group of individuals broad access to systems containing the personal information of millions of current, former, and prospective federal employees. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and limits on executive authority.

Earlier in the case, the court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that OPM unlawfully disclosed records and failed to follow its own cybersecurity safeguards when granting access to those individuals. The court issued a preliminary injunction after determining that some of the individuals did not have a demonstrated need for the access provided and were not properly vetted or trained.

The identities of those individuals were initially withheld under a stipulated protective order that allowed redaction of personally identifiable information. The government argued throughout the litigation that disclosure of the names could lead to threats or harassment.

Public oversight. In resolving the motion to unseal, the court applied both the common law and First Amendment standards governing public access to judicial documents. The court first determined that the materials at issue qualify as judicial documents because they were submitted to influence the court’s decisions and were relied upon in resolving substantive motions, including the request for preliminary injunctive relief and a motion to dismiss.

The court emphasized that the presumption of public access is at its strongest when documents bear directly on the adjudication of substantive rights. Here, the identities of the individuals were not peripheral. Instead, the court repeatedly relied on who those individuals were, their roles, their training, and their access to sensitive systems in assessing the legality of the challenged conduct.

“The identities of the relevant DOGE Agents were integral to the merits analysis,” the court explained, noting that individualized assessments of their backgrounds and responsibilities were central to prior rulings in the case. The court further concluded that public access serves a significant accountability function in a case involving alleged mishandling of sensitive government data. Disclosure, it reasoned, allows the public to better understand the court’s decisions and evaluate the government’s conduct.

Anonymity sought. In response, the government argued that disclosure was unnecessary because the court could continue to use anonymized labels when referring to the individuals. The court rejected that position, finding that the relevant question is not whether the court can function with placeholders, but whether the public can meaningfully monitor the judicial process.

The court also addressed the government’s characterization of the individuals as low-level employees whose identities add little to public understanding. It found that argument inconsistent with the scope of authority and access granted to them, including administrative permissions over systems containing sensitive personal data. The court noted that, at the same time those individuals were granted access, career database administrators had their access revoked, underscoring the significance of who was entrusted with the data.

Privacy and safety. The government’s principal counterargument focused on privacy and safety risks, including the possibility of harassment. The court acknowledged that privacy interests of nonparties can weigh against disclosure but found that those interests were limited in this context.

In this instance, the individuals at issue were not incidental third parties, the court explained, but central actors whose roles and conduct are directly at issue in the litigation. Therefore, their identities bear directly on the public’s ability to assess the challenged government action. The court also found that any remaining privacy interest was diminished because the identities had already entered the public domain through news reporting and other sources.

As to safety concerns, the court concluded that the government failed to present specific evidence showing that disclosure of names alone would likely lead to harm. It distinguished other cases involving harassment, noting that those situations involved the publication of deposition videos rather than mere disclosure of identities. Generalized concerns about potential harassment, the court held, are insufficient to overcome the presumption of access.

First Amendment. The court separately held that the First Amendment independently requires disclosure. Judicial records submitted in connection with pretrial motions and summary judgment proceedings fall within the scope of the First Amendment right of access, which provides even stronger protection than the common law. Once that right attaches, sealing is permissible only if it is necessary to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored. The court found that the government did not meet that standard.

The court emphasized that the issues in the case are matters of public concern, involving government handling of sensitive personal data and compliance with statutory safeguards. Public access to information about the individuals involved plays a significant role in enabling oversight of both the litigation and the underlying conduct. The court concluded that the government had not made the required “specific, on-the-record” showing that continued sealing was necessary, nor had it demonstrated that broad redaction of all names was narrowly tailored.

The case is No. 25cv1237 (DLC).

Judge: Cote, D.

Attorneys: Andrew H. Warren (Democracy Defenders Fund) and Victoria Noble (Electronic Frontier Foundation) for American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and Association of Administrative Law Judges, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Judicial Council 1, AFL-CIO. Alyssa O'Gallagher, U.S. Attorney's Office, for U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Companies: American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; Association of Administrative Law Judges, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Judicial Council 1, AFL-CIO

Cases: Privacy Procedure PublicEmployees RemediesDamages NewYorkNews