In a highly divisive ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an agency created under President Donald Trump, permission to access sensitive data from the Social Security Administration (SSA), sparking widespread concern over Americans’ privacy rights.
The decision overturns a previous federal court order that had limited DOGE’s access to the personal information of millions of U.S. citizens. The high court’s brief, unsigned statement approved DOGE’s request, allowing its team members to access SSA records to “carry out their duties.”
Notably, the ruling was split, with the Court’s three liberal justices dissenting. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced strong opposition, warning that the ruling could have serious implications for personal data security.
“This includes Social Security numbers, home addresses, birth dates, bank information, and even medical records,” she cautioned. “The government wants to hand all this over to DOGE before courts have had a chance to determine whether this access is even legal.”
The initial restriction on DOGE’s access was issued in April by U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander. Her order required the SSA to limit the department’s access to anonymized or redacted data and only allow cleared personnel, those who passed background checks and received privacy training to view such information.
The lawsuit that led to Hollander’s decision was filed by several labor unions. They accused the SSA of bypassing critical data protection standards and allowing unauthorized DOGE staff to access private records.
DOGE was launched by President Trump with a mandate to drastically reduce federal spending. At its inception, the agency was headed by Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, though Musk later distanced himself publicly from Trump after a fallout.
Since returning to the presidency, Trump has frequently clashed with the judiciary over rulings that have blocked or delayed his executive actions. The latest Supreme Court decision marks a major win for his administration’s agenda but also raises fresh concerns among civil rights advocates and privacy watchdogs.
