Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Access Social Security Records

The Trump administration has filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court seeking authorization for the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access protected information maintained by the Social Security Administration. This high-profile case highlights ongoing tensions between government efficiency efforts and Social Security privacy protections that have been in place for decades.

This legal action follows a significant ruling by U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland, who implemented restrictions on DOGE’s ability to access Social Security records containing personal data of millions of American citizens. The case centers on fundamental questions about who should have access to sensitive Social Security information and under what circumstances.

Judge Hollander’s comprehensive 145-page decision determined that the plaintiffs—comprising two labor unions and an advocacy organization represented by Democracy Forward—demonstrated a high probability of success in their claim that the Social Security Administration’s decision constituted violations of both the Privacy Act and federal rulemaking regulations.

Legal Basis for the Social Security Data Restriction

In her judicial analysis, Judge Hollander emphasized: “The issue here is not the work that DOGE or the agency want to do. The issue is about how they want to do the work.” She further noted that DOGE’s request for access to personally identifiable information entrusted to the Social Security Administration represents a “wide fissure” in the agency’s 90-year foundational principle regarding privacy expectations.

The court’s ruling permits DOGE personnel to access Social Security Administration data under specific conditions:

• Data must be redacted or anonymized
• Personnel must complete mandatory training programs
• Background investigations are required for all personnel accessing the information

Following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit’s decision not to suspend the injunction, the administration escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, making this a landmark Social Security privacy case.

Administration’s Legal Position on Social Security Access

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in his petition to the Supreme Court, argued that the injunction fundamentally impedes federal employees from performing their designated functions in modernizing government systems.

“The government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs,” Sauer asserted in the legal filing.

The administration’s position maintains that:

• The plaintiffs lack proper standing to initiate legal proceedings
• The district court exceeded its jurisdictional authority
• The injunction compromises “urgent federal priorities”
• The ruling obstructs executive branch operations related to Social Security oversight

Broader Context of Legal Challenges to Social Security Data Access

This case represents one among approximately twelve instances where the Trump administration has requested emergency intervention from the Supreme Court. Currently, over 200 legal challenges to various aspects of the president’s second-term agenda are proceeding through the federal court system. However, this particular case marks the first instance involving the cost-reduction task force to reach the Supreme Court.

President Trump established DOGE immediately upon returning to office, appointing Elon Musk to lead the initiative. The White House has subsequently clarified that Amy Gleason serves as DOGE’s formal administrator. This task force has deployed personnel to more than twelve federal agencies, including the Social Security Administration, as part of the administration’s government restructuring strategy.

Multiple Legal Challenges to Social Security Privacy

DOGE’s efforts to access sensitive information across various federal agencies have generated multiple lawsuits alleging Privacy Act violations. The Social Security Administration data access request has become a focal point in these challenges due to the volume and sensitivity of personal information involved.

Additionally, Musk’s involvement with DOGE has prompted constitutional challenges, with a federal judge in Maryland ruling that Musk and DOGE likely violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause through unilateral action regarding the U.S. Agency for International Development, raising questions about similar actions related to Social Security data access.