The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will hear a lawsuit over a left-wing watchdog’s attempt to obtain the Department of Government Efficiency’s internal documents through a Freedom of Information Act request, which the Trump administration claims intrudes on separation-of-powers protections.
The high court granted review of U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in an orders list, taking up the case on the merits nearly a year and a half after giving the Trump administration a key win in the case on the emergency docket.
The Trump administration has argued that DOGE is not subject to FOIA because it is a presidential advisory board, while left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has maintained that it is subject to the law and has pushed to obtain internal documents from DOGE. A lower federal court had ordered discovery into whether DOGE is subject to FOIA, but the Trump administration has argued the “sweeping, intrusive discovery” would effectively give the watchdog the documents it wants through the request before the court could even determine if it is subject to the public records request.
The Supreme Court handed DOGE a win in the case in June 2025, halting discovery in the interim by finding, in a 6-3 decision on ideological lines, that the lower court’s ruling was too broad. When the high court hears oral arguments later this term, the justices will look at whether “a court may order broad discovery against an Executive Office advisory body—potentially providing much information sought on the merits of a plaintiff’s FOIA claims—to determine whether FOIA’s disclosure requirements apply in the first place.”
While DOGE’s main mission was completed in July, the case presents a key separation-of-powers issue regarding FOIA and executive-branch groups that goes beyond DOGE’s initiative, which was designed to streamline government operations.
Blanche v. Ozurumba
The Supreme Court also granted merits review for two other cases on Tuesday, including Blanche v. Ozurumba, where the high court will examine the threshold for “material support” of a terrorist organization in the context of immigration cases.
The case involves Izuchukwu Ozurumba, a noncitizen who entered the United States at the southern border in 2023 and then applied for asylum. Ozurumba’s asylum request was denied because an immigration judge found he provided “material support” for a terrorist organization, after he was recruited by and later forced to cook for the terrorist group in Nigeria. A federal appeals court reversed the finding that he provided “material support” for a terrorist organization, narrowing the scope of what constitutes sufficient support to be disqualified from receiving asylum. The high court will review the threshold for “material support” in its eventual ruling in the case.
SUPREME COURT WEIGHS REQUEST TO PROTECT FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL WRESTLER FROM COMPETING AGAINST MALE ATHLETES
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the three cases it granted review of sometime between January and April 2027, with rulings for all cases it hears this term expected by the end of June 2027.
The high court’s term, which began last week, is loaded with several notable cases, including legal battles over state “assault weapons” bans, the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy for illegal immigrants, among other major issues. The Supreme Court is still expected to add dozens of additional cases to its docket in the coming months, with arguments in early 2027.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
