Judge Rules On Temporary Restraining Order On DOGE
The legal battle over Elon Musk’s role in the U.S. government took a significant turn as U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) that sought to limit his access to multiple federal agencies. This ruling represents an early setback for the coalition of 14 Democrat-led states that filed the lawsuit, arguing that Musk’s advisory role violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
At the hearing, Judge Chutkan was unconvinced that the Democratic attorneys general had met the legal standard for an urgent restraining order. She emphasized that such an action requires proof of “extreme” and “imminent harm” that “can’t be undone.”
The plaintiffs claimed that Musk’s involvement in government decisions could cause chaos, but the judge pushed back, noting that any staffing disruptions or policy shifts could be reversed if necessary. In short, the plaintiffs’ arguments didn’t rise to the level of an emergency warranting immediate judicial intervention.
In rejecting the TRO, Judge Chutkan has, for now, allowed Musk and DOGE—the U.S. Digital Operations & Governance Entity—to continue their work without legal obstruction. However, this is only the opening round in what is shaping up to be a high-profile legal showdown.
The Democratic attorneys general, led by New Mexico’s Raúl Torrez, framed their lawsuit in stark terms, portraying Musk as an unelected tech mogul wielding unchecked authority over government operations. They argued that his influence over issues such as student aid funding, farm subsidies, and labor protections amounts to an unconstitutional accumulation of executive power.
“Empowering an unelected billionaire to access Americans’ private data, slash funding for federal student aid, stop payments to American farmers, and dismantle protections for working families is not a sign of President Trump’s strength, but his weakness,” Torrez declared in a dramatic statement. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes went further, calling Musk’s role a “threat to democracy” and invoking the nation’s founders as a warning against modern-day oligarchy.
The Justice Department, however, dismissed these claims as baseless, asserting that Musk is not a government officer but simply an advisor to President Trump. DOJ lawyers argued that “an advisor does not become an officer simply because the officer listens to his advice” and pointed out that the plaintiffs failed to provide any concrete examples of Musk exercising direct governmental authority.
Despite this setback, it is unlikely that the Democratic AGs will abandon their legal offensive. Many observers expected a different outcome, given that Judge Chutkan had previously overseen Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal case against Trump.
In that case, she had repeatedly ruled against Trump’s legal team, prompting some to speculate that she would be similarly inclined in this lawsuit. Progressive outlets like The New Republic had eagerly anticipated the case, highlighting Chutkan’s previous willingness to challenge Trump’s legal defenses.