Federal judge rejects request to block DOGE staff from Treasury system

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

03/07/25 12:21 PM ET


A federal judge on Friday rejected a request to block employees with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing a sensitive federal payment system at the Treasury Department. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied the request from the Alliance for Retired Americans and several employee unions, finding they failed to show they would face irreparable harm if the DOGE staff gained access.

“If Plaintiffs could show that Defendants imminently planned to make their private information public or to share that information with individuals outside the federal government with no obligation to maintain its confidentiality, the Court would not hesitate to find likelihood of irreparable harm,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “But on the present record, Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendants have such a plan,” she continued.

The judge also lifted an earlier order that restricted access to the system, known as the Fiscal Service, which handles 90 percent of federal payments. Her previous order allowed two DOGE-affiliated employees to receive read-only access to the payment system. This initially included Cloud Software Group CEO Tom Krause and 25-year-old Marko Elez.

After Elez resigned in early February, the order was updated to allow a new employee detailed to the Treasury Department, Ryan Wunderly, to receive access to the Fiscal Service. Despite Kollar-Kotelly’s decision Friday, another ruling remains in place blocking the DOGE team from the system.

Read more: https://thehill.com/business/5182656-federal-judge-rejects-request-to-block-doge-staff-from-treasury-system/

---

Fortunately this ruling has no meaning because a different judge has blocked access - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143401748

The above access halt is until March 24 where the administration needs to show that those will access the systems have the proper vetting, clearances and training, etc.

[Irish_Dem]

1. The hackers can set up federal payments to themselves and family for generations.

No one will find the illegal hacks.

[atreides1]

2. These Judges are idiots

With all the fuck ups that DOGE has already committed and they really can't see it?

So, people wait until they've had their identities stolen and they've lost everything, by then it'll be too fucking late and the same judge will lament about how there isn't anything they can do, and how sorry they are for what people have suffered!!!

[Zackzzzz]

3. Did the Judge ask if the "readers" were Bonded?

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Duh, DOGE employees are outside the federal government.

[bluestarone]

5. Three words

Unbelievably STUPID judge

[diane in sf]

6. Or just another corrupt fascist from the Federalist Society.

[clevergrrrl]

13. this

[mahina]

7. Thank you BRDS. It's all upsetting and confusing. I so appreciate your added info about the other judge.

Hoping for safety for all.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. There are a lot of overlapping cases

so it can be insane trying to keep track!

[Bengus81]

8. Sounds familiar from some Judges if wanting a restraining order.....

Judge: if that person you want the order against kills you come back and I'll give you that restraining order.

But... until that happens I see no proof.

[moniss]

10. Saying that there needs to be "evidence" of a plan,

which would mean things such as something written or spoken, or else no action can be taken is nonsense. I would ask the judge "So by your reasoning if a group of men in black garb, face-masks and carrying weapons are seen coming into the bank nobody should stop them on suspicion of a potential robbery because there is no "evidence" of a plan? Judge we have concepts called crime prevention and not just crime reaction. In the first case we seek to take actions in order to not have something happen. In the second we try to apprehend those who did something and apply punishment. The idea that criminals will somehow provide us with evidence of a plan beforehand is mostly a wishful fantasy as most law enforcement people will tell you. Judge one of the main ways we do prevention is by protecting things ahead of time before a crime can be committed. Judge one of the reasons we do that is because the damage done by the crime may be so severe and widespread that the law may not provide much of a redress and because the perpetrators of the crime may be able to make themselves inaccessible to even that weak measure of what Your Honor may call justice. So no Your Honor it makes no sense when there is huge risk to sit and say no action can be taken because you don't see a plan. Your apology for lacking vision in that regard will be a worthless balm for those people impacted and destroyed."

Judges like this are similar to people in the '30's who watched Hitler move on the Czechs and then said "Well we still don't know what this all means so we shouldn't get involved." The analogy may not be perfect but the result of people having their lives torn apart by financial fraud etc. due to theft of data/identity fraud is not some intellectual exercise for a law review article. It can turn people into homelessness, take their health and cause their deaths. If a bunch of Black Lives Matter folks were converging on the judge's neighborhood in protest I highly doubt if she would feel the need to see evidence of a plan to commit a crime before calling the cops and demanding and expecting protection. This is not to say she is racist it is only to say that lofty "reasoning" goes out the door when the rubber is hitting the road. Easy to sit behind the bench and make rulings like this but quite another to deal with life right in your face. Suddenly people see things in more "need in the moment" ways.

If the judiciary at large were being targeted for their personal data etc. and having it put at risk we can certainly believe there would be no "waiting" before major protective actions were taken. The judge here is simply wrong about having to see a plan before extending protection. Protection can be extended based on the magnitude of the risk. It's done every day by judges across the country in domestic protection orders (many times issued with no evidence of prior acts or threats), orders of protection of financial data in estate matters etc. and in civil litigation between corporations regarding financial matters and intellectual property matters.

[choie]

11. They haven't shown irreparable harm?

What are they waiting for, for these DOGE assholes to take all our information and ruin our institutions? WTF?

[Deminpenn]

12. She'll turn 82 next month

Originally appointed to the DC superior court by Reagan in 1984, then to the DC circuit court in 1997 by Clinton.

[SunSeeker]

14. That she would let nongovernmental teens access to our bank info should get her kicked off the bench.

[Qutzupalotl]

15. The unions don't have standing. Congress does.

The unions can't show harm. Congress authorized and funded the agencies, so their power is directly harmed.

Reading between the lines, I think congressional Democrats had to wait for this decision before taking their next step:
https://substack.com/@ariellaelm/note/c-97273151?r=40y5k&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

[BumRushDaShow]

16. Congress has been limited in the past for standing too

What has to happen are individuals and more recently, the states that seem to have a better case for showing harm.

I was on a telephone Town Hall with my Congressman this morning (Dwight Evans (D) PA-3) and he had our PA governor on (Josh Shapiro, who also used to be the PA AG back during the 2020 election) and the AG of the state of Delaware (Kathy Jennings (D)) who brought the issue up. The PA AG after the 2024 election is a (R) so our lawyer Governor has been doing his own filings on behalf of the state.

Jennings mentioned how the 23 (D) AGs (which includes the AG of D.C.) are taking the lead due to some of these standing issues and she mentioned that so far, they have "been winning".

[AmericaUnderSiege]

17. Umm...excuse me. What shows they have a right to access the system?

It belongs to the public, not to them.