In a major legal blow to Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit brought by 14 states can move forward. The states accuse Musk and DOGE of illegally accessing government data systems, canceling federal contracts, and firing thousands of government employees without proper authority. The court’s decision now opens the door for what could become one of the most consequential constitutional cases in modern American history.
The ruling, issued Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, permits the lawsuit’s core claims against Musk and DOGE to proceed, although she did dismiss former President Donald Trump as a defendant. The states initially filed the suit in February, arguing that Musk’s unchecked authority under DOGE represents an unlawful power grab that bypasses the Constitution’s safeguards on executive appointments and federal oversight.
At the heart of the case is Musk’s role in DOGE, a controversial agency created by executive order during Trump’s second term. While the agency was pitched as a tool to streamline federal bureaucracy, critics argue it has effectively allowed Musk to act as a de facto government official without Senate confirmation. According to the lawsuit, Musk used DOGE to restructure agencies, terminate more than 50,000 jobs, and unilaterally override existing federal contracts.
Judge Chutkan underscored the seriousness of these allegations in her ruling. “The Constitution does not permit the Executive to commandeer the entire appointments power by unilaterally creating a federal agency pursuant to Executive Order and insulating its principal officer from the Constitution as an ‘advisor’ in name only,” she wrote. “This is precisely what Plaintiffs claim the Executive has done.”
This isn’t the first legal challenge aimed at reining in DOGE. Earlier this year, the coalition of states requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the agency from accessing government systems or conducting layoffs. While Judge Chutkan denied that request, she acknowledged that there were legitimate concerns about the legality of Musk’s authority.
The Trump administration has pushed back, claiming that all employment and operational decisions are being made by confirmed agency heads, not Musk. Officials argue that Musk only serves in an advisory capacity and is not responsible for DOGE’s daily operations. While that defense convinced the court to remove Trump from the case, it failed to shield Musk or the agency from continued legal scrutiny.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs offer a far different narrative. They contend that Musk has exploited his position to run DOGE as a personal fiefdom, using it to fire federal employees, shred contracts, and centralize control of public institutions under a single private figure. “This is not just about Elon Musk,” one lawyer said. “This is about whether the president can invent an agency, install someone with no legal authority, and let them remake the federal workforce. That’s not reform. That’s unconstitutional.”
Musk has not responded publicly to the ruling, though he has previously defended his role at DOGE as a mission to eliminate corruption and waste in Washington. Supporters of the agency argue that DOGE has delivered real cost savings and brought private sector efficiency into a bloated government. Yet critics see it as an alarming step toward authoritarian governance, with unelected individuals wielding unchecked influence over federal policy.
Judge Chutkan, who was appointed by President Barack Obama and previously oversaw the now-dismissed election interference case against Trump, emphasized in her decision that the courts must intervene when executive actions threaten constitutional balance. Her ruling ensures the lawsuit will now enter a deeper phase, with discovery and potential trial proceedings that could reveal even more about Musk’s role in shaping federal operations.
As the case progresses, constitutional scholars and civil rights watchdogs are watching closely. They warn that the outcome could have lasting implications on the limits of presidential power and the growing role of private actors in public governance. If the plaintiffs prevail, it could mark a dramatic rollback of the Trump-era experiment in outsourcing key government functions to unelected individuals.
The court’s decision does not mean that Musk or DOGE will ultimately be held liable. But it does mean they must answer to the American people in open court. And for now, the idea that a billionaire can reshape the federal government without accountability has hit a serious constitutional wall.
