Judge Cote rules OPM's DOGE data access broke the Privacy Act; the government argues no relief is needed
Judge Denise Cote rules that OPM broke the Privacy Act when it gave DOGE agents broad access to federal workers' personnel records. The government argues no further relief is needed; the unions' lawyers call the ruling a victory.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Judge Denise Cote ruled on October 20, 2026 that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management violated the Privacy Act when it gave DOGE agents broad access to systems holding federal workers' personal records in early 2025. The government argued the access went to OPM employees and that no further relief is warranted. The court has not yet decided relief.
Read the full background
The American Federation of Government Employees, the Association of Administrative Law Judges and individual current and former federal workers sued OPM, the U.S. DOGE Service and Elon Musk on February 11, 2025. Cote entered a preliminary injunction in June 2025 that blocked DOGE agents' access to the records.
In her October 20 opinion (opens in a new tab), Cote held that OPM's grants of access violated two Privacy Act provisions, one limiting disclosure of records and one requiring security safeguards, and granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on their Administrative Procedure Act claims. She granted the government summary judgment on a separate ultra vires claim against the DOGE defendants.
The government's July brief argued that no DOGE agent still has access to the plaintiffs' records and that OPM found no evidence their data was extracted or improperly shared. Cote will ask the parties what relief, if any, is appropriate. An OPM spokesperson declined to comment to Federal News Network, citing the ongoing litigation.
People in this case
Elon MuskDirectly involved
Norm EisenCommented
Timeline
4 timeline entries on this page. Dates: February 11, 2025 to October 20, 2026
February 2025
Unions and federal workers sue OPM over DOGE access
Current and former federal employees and their unions sue OPM, the U.S. DOGE Service and Elon Musk in the Southern District of New York, alleging that OPM's grant of records access to DOGE agents violated the Privacy Act.
[01]AFGE v. OPM: October 20 opinion and order on summary judgment
Judge Denise Cote rules on cross-motions for summary judgment in the federal unions' Privacy Act case against OPM, the U.S. DOGE Service and Elon Musk. Relief is left for a later ruling.
AFGE v. OPM: October 20 opinion and order on summary judgmentNo. 1:25-cv-01237-DLC, Document 241; pages 1-5, 29-31 and 34-38
June 2025
Court enters a preliminary injunction on DOGE access
After a June 9 opinion finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims, Cote enters a preliminary injunction on June 20 that blocks DOGE agents' access to OPM records.
[01]AFGE v. OPM: October 20 opinion and order on summary judgment
Judge Denise Cote rules on cross-motions for summary judgment in the federal unions' Privacy Act case against OPM, the U.S. DOGE Service and Elon Musk. Relief is left for a later ruling.
AFGE v. OPM: October 20 opinion and order on summary judgmentNo. 1:25-cv-01237-DLC, Document 241; pages 1-5, 29-31 and 34-38[02]OPM unlawfully let DOGE access sensitive federal employee data, judge rules
Federal News Network reports the ruling, quotes plaintiffs' counsel and reports that OPM declined to comment.
July 2026
Government asks the court to deny further relief
In a reply brief, the government says no DOGE agent still has access to the plaintiffs' personal information, that OPM found no evidence the data was extracted or improperly shared, and that neither declaratory nor injunctive relief is warranted.
[03]AFGE v. OPM: defendants' July 7, 2026 summary judgment reply memorandum
The defendants' reply memorandum in support of their summary judgment motion and in opposition to the plaintiffs' cross-motion.
AFGE v. OPM: defendants' July 7, 2026 summary judgment reply memorandumNo. 1:25-cv-01237-DLC, Document 227; pages 1-10 and 16
October 2026
Cote rules OPM's grants of access violated the Privacy Act
Source release
Cote grants the plaintiffs summary judgment on their Administrative Procedure Act claims and grants the government summary judgment on the ultra vires claim. She says the court will seek the parties' views on what relief, if any, is appropriate.
[01]AFGE v. OPM: October 20 opinion and order on summary judgment
Judge Denise Cote rules on cross-motions for summary judgment in the federal unions' Privacy Act case against OPM, the U.S. DOGE Service and Elon Musk. Relief is left for a later ruling.
AFGE v. OPM: October 20 opinion and order on summary judgmentNo. 1:25-cv-01237-DLC, Document 241; pages 1-5, 29-31 and 34-38[02]OPM unlawfully let DOGE access sensitive federal employee data, judge rules
Federal News Network reports the ruling, quotes plaintiffs' counsel and reports that OPM declined to comment.
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
4 responses. Newest first.
Norm EisenExecutive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, co-counsel for the plaintiffsBefore this statement
The Democracy Defenders Fund release says the court ruled that OPM violated the Privacy Act and that the ruling did not decide whether further relief is warranted.
"The federal government had no business handing the personal data of tens of millions of people to Elon Musk and DOGE"
CondemnedCase context: Judge Cote rules OPM's DOGE data access broke the Privacy Act; the government argues no relief is needed
Full statement and sources
In a Democracy Defenders Fund statement on the ruling, executive chair Norm Eisen, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, calls it a resounding victory and says the government had no business giving DOGE the personal data of tens of millions of people.
After the statement
Eisen goes on to call the ruling a rebuke of the administration and says the court made clear that no agency or special government employee like Musk is above the law.
Big Win for Federal Workers: Federal Court Rules OPM Broke the Law by Handing DOGE Access to Sensitive Data · Democracy Defenders FundWhy this label?
The case concerns OPM's decision to give DOGE agents access to federal personnel records. Eisen says the government had no business handing over that data, which condemns the conduct under scrutiny.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Denise CoteU.S. district judge, Southern District of New YorkDirectly involved Before this statement
Cote writes that there is no meaningful dispute about the underlying conduct and that the defendants barely defend its legality, relying instead on later events to argue that the case is moot.
"OPM’s decision to grant DOGE Agents broad access to its systems of records containing PII without a demonstrated need was unlawful"
CondemnedCase context: Judge Cote rules OPM's DOGE data access broke the Privacy Act; the government argues no relief is needed
Full statement and sources
In her October 20 opinion, Judge Denise Cote rules that OPM acted unlawfully when it gave DOGE agents broad access to systems holding personal information without a demonstrated need. Because the access has been rescinded, she says it does not need to be set aside.
After the statement
She adds that because all the access permissions have been rescinded, they need not be set aside, and she rejects the government's argument that DOGE agents' modernization duties justified the access.
AFGE v. OPM: October 20 opinion and order on summary judgmentNo. 1:25-cv-01237-DLC, Document 241; pages 1-5, 29-31 and 34-38Why this label?
The case concerns OPM's decision to give DOGE agents access to federal personnel records. Cote rules that the decision was unlawful, which condemns the conduct under scrutiny.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Electronic Frontier FoundationCounsel for the plaintiffsBefore this statement
EFF writes that, starting in January 2025, OPM disclosed data to the U.S. DOGE Service, which Elon Musk initially led.
"This disclosure violates the federal Privacy Act of 1974, a watershed anti-surveillance statute that prevents the federal government from abusing our personal information."
CondemnedCase context: Judge Cote rules OPM's DOGE data access broke the Privacy Act; the government argues no relief is needed
Full statement and sources
In a post on the ruling, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represents the plaintiffs, says OPM's disclosure of data to DOGE violates the Privacy Act and that OPM should still clean up the cybersecurity problems it created.
After the statement
EFF says it sued on behalf of federal employee unions and individual employees and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief.
Victory! Court Rules OPM's Disclosure of Personal Records to DOGE Is Unlawful · Electronic Frontier FoundationWhy this label?
The case concerns OPM's decision to give DOGE agents access to federal personnel records. EFF says the disclosure violates the Privacy Act, which condemns the conduct under scrutiny.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
U.S. Office of Personnel ManagementLead defendant, in a brief filed for OPM and the other defendants by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New YorkDirectly involvedBefore this statement
The brief says the plaintiffs rely on a roster from a separate case listing DOGE employees, which is not part of the administrative record, and asks the court not to consider it.
"it should still conclude that OPM-2 and OPM-18 were at all relevant times OPM employees, as the totality of the evidence refutes plaintiffs’ characterization"
Defended or excusedCase context: Judge Cote rules OPM's DOGE data access broke the Privacy Act; the government argues no relief is needed
Full statement and sources
In a July 7 reply brief, the government argues that two people the case identifies as OPM-2 and OPM-18 were OPM employees throughout the relevant period, and that the plaintiffs cannot show ongoing injury.
After the statement
It cites sworn declarations from DOGE Administrator Amy Gleason, from OPM-18 himself and from an OPM human resources specialist saying OPM-18 was never detailed to DOGE.
AFGE v. OPM: defendants' July 7, 2026 summary judgment reply memorandumNo. 1:25-cv-01237-DLC, Document 227; pages 1-10 and 16Why this label?
The case concerns OPM's decision to give DOGE agents access to federal personnel records. The government argues that the two people at issue were OPM employees when they received access, which defends the conduct under scrutiny.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(5)
Original text
AFGE v. OPM: October 20 opinion and order on summary judgment
Relevant passage: No. 1:25-cv-01237-DLC, Document 241; pages 1-5, 29-31 and 34-38
About this source
Judge Denise Cote rules on cross-motions for summary judgment in the federal unions' Privacy Act case against OPM, the U.S. DOGE Service and Elon Musk. Relief is left for a later ruling.
- Author
- Denise Cote
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
OPM unlawfully let DOGE access sensitive federal employee data, judge rules
About this source
Federal News Network reports the ruling, quotes plaintiffs' counsel and reports that OPM declined to comment.
- Author
- Drew Friedman
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Big Win for Federal Workers: Federal Court Rules OPM Broke the Law by Handing DOGE Access to Sensitive Data
About this source
Democracy Defenders Fund, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, announces the ruling with statements from its executive chair, AFGE's national president and other counsel.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Victory! Court Rules OPM's Disclosure of Personal Records to DOGE Is Unlawful
About this source
EFF, which represents the plaintiffs, describes the October 20 ruling and the relief it still seeks.
- Author
- Mario Trujillo
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
AFGE v. OPM: defendants' July 7, 2026 summary judgment reply memorandum
Relevant passage: No. 1:25-cv-01237-DLC, Document 227; pages 1-10 and 16
About this source
The defendants' reply memorandum in support of their summary judgment motion and in opposition to the plaintiffs' cross-motion.
- Author
- Ilan Stein, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Judge Cote rules OPM's DOGE data access broke the Privacy Act; the government argues no relief is needed
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/opm-doge-data-access-privacy-act-cote-ruling
The Dispute Index. "Judge Cote rules OPM's DOGE data access broke the Privacy Act; the government argues no relief is needed". First published: 2026-10-27. Last updated: 2026-10-27. https://disputeindex.com/cases/opm-doge-data-access-privacy-act-cote-ruling