The Trump administration secured a notable procedural victory on April 10, 2026, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, vacated a preliminary injunction that had restricted the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive records at the Social Security Administration (SSA).
The ruling lifts immediate barriers to DOGE personnel reviewing non-anonymized personally identifiable information (PII) held by the SSA, while sending the underlying dispute back to the district court for full merits litigation. The decision follows a complex procedural history involving multiple stays and appeals.
Background of the Dispute
The SSA maintains vast troves of highly sensitive data on nearly every American, including Social Security numbers, medical histories, bank account details, tax information, and citizenship status. This information has long been protected under strict privacy protocols.
Following President Trump’s January 2025 executive order establishing the U.S. DOGE Service to modernize government technology and improve efficiency, DOGE team members sought broad access to SSA systems. Career SSA officials raised concerns, leading to resignations and the installation of new leadership that granted the requested access.
Three major organizations—AFSCME, the Alliance for Retired Americans, and the American Federation of Teachers—representing roughly seven million members, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. They argued that providing DOGE with unrestricted access to non-anonymized PII violated federal privacy laws, including the Privacy Act.
Senior District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander issued a preliminary injunction in April 2025 limiting that access. The Trump administration appealed and, after the Fourth Circuit initially declined a stay, successfully obtained one from the Supreme Court in June 2025. The Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments en banc in September 2025.
The Fourth Circuit’s Analysis
In an opinion authored by Judge Toby Heytens (joined in relevant parts by several colleagues), the en banc court focused on the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions established in Winter v. NRDC:
- Likelihood of success on the merits
- Irreparable harm
- Balance of the equities
- Public interest
The majority concluded that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm based on the record available to the district court at the time of the injunction. Plaintiffs’ core theory was that the mere disclosure of sensitive data to DOGE personnel constituted the harm itself. The court noted that any proven violations could potentially be remedied later through damages under the Privacy Act or a permanent injunction after full litigation. Without a showing that the harm would be irreparable in the interim, immediate injunctive relief was not warranted.
The opinion also clarified and refined the court’s approach from a prior related DOGE case (American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent), disavowing any overly mechanical “multiplicative” analysis of likelihood-of-success factors and reaffirming adherence to the standard equitable test.
The ruling was divided, with concurrences and partial dissents. Some judges expressed differing views on standing, the weight of the Supreme Court’s stay, and the irreparable harm analysis. A partial dissent by Judge Robert King (joined by several colleagues) highlighted “alarming” later revelations, including government concessions about possible improper data handling or violations of a temporary restraining order by DOGE affiliates. However, the majority emphasized it was bound to decide based on the earlier record and deferred significantly to the Supreme Court’s interim stay.
Implications and Next Steps
This decision represents a solid win for the Trump administration and DOGE on the procedural front, allowing continued access while substantive questions—regarding the scope of DOGE’s authority, compliance with privacy statutes, and necessity of broad data access—proceed in the district court.
Privacy advocates remain concerned about the risks to millions of Americans’ sensitive information, especially given subsequent reports of data mishandling. The case underscores ongoing tensions between government efficiency initiatives and longstanding data protection norms.
Legal observers expect further developments, potentially including additional motions or even Supreme Court review if the district court reaches a final decision on the merits. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion spans nearly 90 pages and reflects deep divisions among the judges on these critical issues of administrative power and individual privacy.
