President Trump’s administration is taking its fight over DOGE records back to the Supreme Court. The justices agreed Tuesday to hear an appeal challenging court-ordered access to the inner workings of the government-cutting operation once associated with Elon Musk.
The fight reaches a basic question about presidential power: how much can a court demand from White House advisers before deciding whether the public-records law covers their office at all?
Musk has left government service, but the legal battle has outlasted his Washington assignment. Tuesday’s action puts the administration’s objections before the justices for a full review.
The new order puts the dispute over court-ordered access to DOGE’s operations on the justices’ agenda:
In its petition, the Justice Department describes a dispute over the U.S. DOGE Service, an office within the Executive Office of the President. The administration argues that its advisory role places it outside the Freedom of Information Act’s requirements for federal agencies.
Government lawyers object to discovery requests covering staff information, internal directives and plans to access classified information. They also challenge a deposition of DOGE administrator Amy Gleason concerning the operation’s structure and responsibilities.
The administration says those demands could hand over much of the information the lawsuit seeks before the court settles whether FOIA applies. It argues that discovery itself can intrude on protected executive-branch deliberations.
The petition also faults the appeals court’s handling of earlier instructions to narrow the requests. Solicitor General Sauer is asking the justices to enforce limits grounded in the separation of powers.
That is a serious concern even beyond DOGE. A president needs room to hear advice, weigh proposals and reject bad ideas without every internal exchange becoming material for a lawsuit.
But the strength of that argument depends on what the office actually does. Giving advice and exercising government authority are different jobs.
The objection is that compulsory disclosure could defeat the advisory structure before its legal protections are resolved:
The group seeking the records, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argues in its opposition brief that DOGE exercised substantial independent authority. It says the office’s actions and structure justify treating it as an agency subject to FOIA.
CREW points to the executive orders establishing DOGE and to public statements about its role across the government. It disputes the administration’s characterization of the central office as a body that merely advised the president.
The group also says it withdrew requests about DOGE’s recommendations after the justices intervened in June 2025. In its account, the remaining discovery addresses the office’s structure and authority, and the appeals court followed the instructions it received.
CREW urged the justices to reject the appeal, warning that an overly broad exemption could let an administration place powerful operations inside the president’s office and shield them from the records law.
The court must draw a workable boundary around presidential advice while preserving the records obligations Congress imposed on actual agencies. Even the process of gathering evidence can cross that boundary, according to the administration.
The two questions presented focus on separation of powers and whether discovery can precede a decision that FOIA applies:
For the administration, getting this appeal heard is a procedural advance. Tuesday’s order does not declare DOGE exempt from FOIA or decide which disputed records must ultimately be produced.
Americans deserve to know what their government is doing with their money. They also deserve courts that respect the constitutional limits on their own power.
An administration should not have to surrender disputed communications just to establish that the law protects them. The challenge for the justices is to set that limit without turning the label “adviser” into a way around disclosure obligations Congress actually imposed.
Read the full Supreme Court order here: U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.
The post Supreme Court Takes Up President Trump’s Fight Over DOGE Records appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.
Continue reading...
[H/T 100PercentFedUp]
