The judge, however, denied a request to prevent the U.S. Treasury Department from sharing information with DOGE employees.
A federal judge on Feb. 24 blocked two agencies from sharing sensitive information with employees of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
“The U.S. Department of Education; Denise L. Carter, the Acting Secretary of Education; and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys are ENJOINED from disclosing the personally identifiable information of the plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff organizations to any DOGE affiliates,” U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman wrote in a 33-page order.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and its employees are also forbidden from disclosing the same information to DOGE workers, the judge said.
The temporary restraining order is in effect until March 10 as the case proceeds. It could be extended, converted into a preliminary injunction, or allowed to expire.
The American Federation of Teachers and other groups recently asked the court to block officials with the OPM, Department of Education (DOE), and U.S. Department of Treasury from conveying sensitive records to DOGE employees.
Allowing DOGE access to the records endangers the privacy rights of veterans and other people represented by the groups, the organizations said in their request to the federal court in Maryland.
Government lawyers argued that the judge should reject the motion for a restraining order because government officials have not violated the plaintiffs’ privacy.
“At the heart of Plaintiffs’ theory is the baseless allegation that ‘DOGE representatives’ at the Defendant agencies are somehow outside the category of federal employees, or outside the category of federal employees in their respective agencies. Neither criticism withstands scrutiny. The Privacy Act therefore expressly allows disclosure of information protected under that statute in the circumstances of this case,” the lawyers wrote in a filing.
Boardman said that even if officials have only been sharing information with other government employees, it still violates the plaintiffs’ right to have their sensitive personal information kept private if the employees are not authorized to access the data.
