Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has secured a major legal victory.
In a late-night ruling, Judge John Bates denied an attempt by unions and nonprofit groups to block DOGE’s oversight of the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The senior D.C. circuit judge ensured that DOGE can have continued access to sensitive government records.
“For the reasons explained above, on the record as it currently stands and with limited briefing on the issue, the case law defining agencies indicates that plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency,” Bates wrote. “If that is so, [DOGE] may detail its employees to other agencies consistent with the Economy Act.”
The judge’s ruling emphasized that DOGE, though created through an executive order, fits the legal definition of an agency and therefore has authority to assign personnel within the federal government.
Musk, who has been vocal about judicial interference in government oversight, celebrated the ruling.
Earlier he had taken to X to vent about any judicial interference in the executive branch’s operations.
“There needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments, not just one,” Musk said earlier.
The decision ensures DOGE can continue to target wasteful government spending and enhance transparency, a key initiative of the Trump administration. For now.
But the legal fight is far from over, as Democratic Attorneys General have launched new lawsuits aimed at curbing DOGE’s reach.
One lawsuit has landed in the hands of Judge Tanya Chutkan, a known critic of Trump. Critics argue that this is a coordinated effort to obstruct Musk’s ability to conduct financial audits across federal agencies.
Meanwhile, legal analysts are urging the Department of Justice to impose injunction bonds on lawsuits aimed at blocking executive actions.
Dan Huff, a former White House official, argued on X that the DOJ should use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) to require suing parties to post a financial bond before obtaining an injunction.
@DOGE, a single district judge has issued a ruling blocking the executive branch from access to Treasury data. There’s a simple fix: DOJ should demand injunction bonds. This will be a repeat problem for the Trump administration, just like it was in the first term, unless something is done to rein in frivolous injunctions. Activist judges could single-handedly gum up the entire Trump/DOGE agenda.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), judges can issue injunctions “ONLY IF” the suing party posts a bond to cover potential damages if they’re wrong. But guess what? This rule is hardly used! When I was in the White House, in Trump’s first term, I suggested this, but DOJ didn’t make it happen. Imagine if we had applied this to the travel ban—activists would think twice before blocking policies with potentially billions at stake.
The government has expert economists who can easily price out the cost of policies like birthright citizenship or wasteful spending. Price injunction bonds fairly, and frivolous lawsuits become a financial risk, not a free pass. Without injunction bonds, the American people bear all the costs of activists and judges blocking the agenda they voted for. Why should activists and judges get to overrule the American people with no penalty if they’re wrong? Our system wasn’t meant to work this way.
For national injunctions, we’re talking bonds in the hundreds of millions or even billions. It will become prohibitive unless the activists have a slam-dunk case. If a judge tries to lowball the bond amount, it’s a quick and easy reversal given the unambiguous language in the federal rules. The best part? This doesn’t block activists from court; it just stops them from using preliminary injunctions to pause government action based on arguments that might not hold up in an appellate court.
If enforced, this legal device would discourage activist judges from blocking lawful reforms without non-profit groups having financial backing in case the judge holds them accountable for damages to the public.
The Resistance’s Never-Ending Lawfare Campaign is Blowing Up In Its Face
