The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday allowing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access sensitive data from the Social Security Administration (SSA), affecting millions of Americans.
The decision follows a federal judge’s earlier injunction that blocked DOGE’s access to this personal data in April, prompting the Trump administration to request emergency relief from the nation’s highest court.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that the SSA could provide DOGE access to its records while legal disputes unfold in lower courts. This access is deemed necessary for DOGE to fulfill its responsibilities effectively.
Supporters of the decision, including representatives from the White House and SSA, hailed it as a victory.
White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston stated that this ruling enables the Trump administration to pursue “commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems.”
Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano echoed this sentiment, underscoring the agency’s commitment to modernizing its systems and enhancing services for beneficiaries.
However, the decision has not been without controversy. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, along with advocacy groups and plaintiffs involved in the case against DOGE and the SSA, raised concerns about the implications of this ruling.
A coalition of plaintiffs characterized the ruling as a significant threat to democracy and personal privacy, stating, “This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people.”
They argued that the ruling would allow President Trump and DOGE’s affiliates to exploit Americans’ private data, and they vowed to utilize all legal means available to challenge the misuse of public data as the case progresses.
The crux of the dispute revolves around the extent of DOGE’s access to Americans’ personal information.
The plaintiffs had initially filed a complaint in early March, asserting that the SSA had abandoned its responsibility to protect sensitive personal information under DOGE’s oversight.
The SSA houses some of the most sensitive personally identifiable information in the U.S., including data from seniors, adults, and children.
Individuals applying for a Social Security number must provide a range of personal details, such as place and date of birth, citizenship status, ethnicity, and Social Security numbers of parents.
Moreover, the agency also has access to additional confidential information, which includes but is not limited to:
– driver’s license and identification information,
– bank and credit card details,
– birth and marriage certificates,
– pension information,
– home and work addresses,
– school records,
– immigration and naturalization documents,
– family court records,
– employment and employer records,
– psychological and psychiatric health records,
– hospitalization records, and
– addiction treatment records, including those for HIV/AIDS testing.
Furthermore, the SSA also collects tax-related data, encompassing total earnings, Social Security and Medicare wages, and annual employee withholdings.
According to the complaint, DOGE has not only accessed sensitive information from the SSA but has also publicly shared this data.
The plaintiffs allege that the actions of DOGE, the SSA, and leadership figures—including former head Elon Musk—have compromised the privacy protections afforded by federal law and increased vulnerabilities concerning personal information.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson, who was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, highlighted that records indicate DOGE received broader access to data than typically permitted for fraud investigations by SSA.
Such investigations generally commence with high-level anonymized data and allow access to more detailed information only on a necessity basis.
Justice Elena Kagan was also among those dissenting in the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision.
Justice Jackson expressed concerns, saying, “The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information before the courts have the chance to assess whether DOGE’s access is lawful.”
While litigation is ongoing, the government sought a temporary suspension of lower court restrictions limiting DOGE’s access.
Jackson elaborated, saying, “But the government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent the court’s intervention.”
image source from：https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/business/money-report/supreme-court-just-gave-doge-access-to-social-security-data-heres-what-personal-information-is-at-stake/4204971/
