Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—D.D.C.: Judge denies temporary restraining order to stop DOGE’s access to DOL data, (Feb 10, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

Labor unions hoped to prevent DOGE from acquiring data while legal proceedings continue but lacked standing.

In requesting a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), labor unions and a nonprofit think tank sought to prevent any person outside the Department of Labor (DOL), most importantly the DOGE employees, from access to non-public DOL information. Specifically, they hoped to have the TRO stop the requirement that DOL employees give DOGE employees access to the data. Although the D.C. court “harbors concerns about defendants’ alleged conduct” a lack of standing prevented the grant of a TRO while litigation continues (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor, No. 25-0339 (JDB) (D.D.C. Feb. 7, 2025)).

DOGE. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) creating the “Department of Government Efficiency,” otherwise known as DOGE. Technically, the EO renamed the United States Digital Service as the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and established the service within the Executive Office of the President. The new USDS, usually referred to as DOGE, consists of two parts: (1) the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, set to only exist for 18 months, and (2) DOGE Teams, housed within agencies of the government, made up of no less than four employees. Recently, four DOGE employees were assigned to the Department of Labor to “assist the Department with improving its information technology and data organization systems and in obtaining accurate and complete data to inform policy decisions.”

The argument was made in the motion for a TRO that allowing DOGE access would be unlawful because, (1) USDS (DOGE) lacks legal authority to take these actions, and (2) the Department of Labor is required under the Privacy Act of 1974 to get individuals’ approval before sharing records with another agency or person. The data at issue was described as including sensitive personal information regarding America’s workers, labor statistics, and health information.

Lack of standing. The court noted that organizations have two routes for establishing standing: asserting an injury to their members or asserting its own injury. The judge wrote, “…on the present record, they satisfy neither.” The General Counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) argued that trust between SEIU and possible complainants would be broken, and it would be harmed in its ability to file persuasive complaints if access to data is allowed. However, according to the court, even if that were true, D.C. Circuit precedent requires both a harm and the use of resources for organizational standing. Nowhere in the record was it stated that any of the plaintiffs would use resources to counteract the harm or would even divert resources. As a result, the motion for a TRO was denied.

The case is No. 25-0339 (JDB).

Attorneys: Aman Tewari George (Democracy Forward Foundation) for American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. Benjamin S. Kurland, U.S. Department of Justice, for Department of Labor.

Companies: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; Department of Labor

MainStory: TopStory Procedure Labor UnionsMembers PublicEmployees Privacy IndividualRights DistrictofColumbiaNews GCNNews DOGE FedTracker