3 ms·

The decision lets DOGE have full access to personally identifiable information in the Social Security Administration database while the case proceeds on appeal.

The decision lets DOGE have full access to personally identifiable information in the Social Security Administration database while the case proceeds on appeal. Is that common? If the legal decision is still not fully answered, I world expect the correct answer is to minimize potential harm, and keep the data locked up by default.

kelnos 1y ago
Yes, this feels pretty bad. If the court later finds that it's not appropriate for DOGE to have this information (and such a ruling survives appeal), it will be too late, and the damage will have been done.
- garyfirestorm 1y ago
  working as intended! once the cat is out of the bag - just say oopsie and go home.
aksss 1y ago
"harm" is kind of the key word here - an executive agency (USDS) is trying to access other executive agency data perform work the executive branch has prioritized. Take the personalities out of the question for a minute. Gov says that enjoining them from accessing the data is doing harm by preventing the work. In opposition, the plaintiffs say that if USDS has access to the data, it will sell it or abscond it, or something. That's a claim of potential harm. First, is the plaintiff likely to succeed on the merits? Probably unlikely that plaintiffs will ultimately succeed in preventing data access within the executive branch. The harm is theoretical, in the future, and not very well articulated. Nothing about USDS access to the data is structurally enabling the selling or distribution of data. Second, where is the most harm at present? Real harm on one hand, potential harm on the other. So likelihood of the harm in the future needs to be really imminent, real, highly likely to outweigh actual harm in a work stoppage. That's basically the formula.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  > an executive agency (USDS) The Trump Administration has repeatedly said DOGE is not a federal agency (mostly so they can say they're exempt from FOIA).
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- boroboro4 1y ago
  The access of private data between different agencies (or whatever) across executive can be (and probably) illegal. And if this access will be considered such it would be impossible to revert. On other hand we have government trying to do something, and their potential harm is delay their plans until courts will consider the case. You need to compare not only immediate harms, but more importantly potential harms of the emergency order in case if final decision differs from (assumed) emergency one. You also make merits question to be very straightforward but it’s not – other courts ruled plaintiffs have good chances to succeed on merits. I think the balancing act here is clear.
jmyeet 1y ago
It depends on the area of law but there's generally a balancing test as to whether or not a court should issue an injunction. There are a number of factors such as the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed but also if the injunction (or lack thereof) causes permanent harm or can be reversed. Imagine a court was considering the issue from years ago when Australian authorities were deciding to release the cane toad to kill sugar cane pests. That's not a decision taht you can take back. Once they're released, there's really no rolling that back. So a court would generally side on issuing an injunction pending an appeal for that very reason. As a historical side note, the cane toad was released and it's been an ecological disaster ever since. Now imagine another case where a government agency is requiring all fishing boats to install transponders and they're relatively cheap. There's reallly no irreversible harm either way so a court will tend to look instead at the likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing instead. At least that's how it should work. In practice, particularly with the Supreme Court through its entire history, there's a fairly accurate way of predicting how they'll rule: pick the side that favors the wealthy and powerful and that's how they'll rule way more often than not. There are exceptions to this and it's not universal (eg decisions rolling back segregation) but it is (IMHO) arguably the best predictor.
rufus_foreman 1y ago
"When considering whether to grant a stay, this Court looks to four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”" -- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1063_6j37.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1063_6j37.pdf
boroboro4 1y ago
I think this ruling is terrible and dissent is very well justified exactly for the reasons you put here. It’s sad we got such a terrible Supreme Court which is seemingly exist to only keep giving (republican) executive whatever they want.

kelnos 1y ago

Yes, this feels pretty bad. If the court later finds that it's not appropriate for DOGE to have this information (and such a ruling survives appeal), it will be too late, and the damage will have been done.

garyfirestorm 1y ago
working as intended! once the cat is out of the bag - just say oopsie and go home.

aksss 1y ago

"harm" is kind of the key word here - an executive agency (USDS) is trying to access other executive agency data perform work the executive branch has prioritized. Take the personalities out of the question for a minute. Gov says that enjoining them from accessing the data is doing harm by preventing the work. In opposition, the plaintiffs say that if USDS has access to the data, it will sell it or abscond it, or something. That's a claim of potential harm. First, is the plaintiff likely to succeed on the merits? Probably unlikely that plaintiffs will ultimately succeed in preventing data access within the executive branch. The harm is theoretical, in the future, and not very well articulated. Nothing about USDS access to the data is structurally enabling the selling or distribution of data. Second, where is the most harm at present? Real harm on one hand, potential harm on the other. So likelihood of the harm in the future needs to be really imminent, real, highly likely to outweigh actual harm in a work stoppage. That's basically the formula.

FireBeyond 1y ago
> an executive agency (USDS) The Trump Administration has repeatedly said DOGE is not a federal agency (mostly so they can say they're exempt from FOIA).
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
boroboro4 1y ago
The access of private data between different agencies (or whatever) across executive can be (and probably) illegal. And if this access will be considered such it would be impossible to revert. On other hand we have government trying to do something, and their potential harm is delay their plans until courts will consider the case. You need to compare not only immediate harms, but more importantly potential harms of the emergency order in case if final decision differs from (assumed) emergency one. You also make merits question to be very straightforward but it’s not – other courts ruled plaintiffs have good chances to succeed on merits. I think the balancing act here is clear.

jmyeet 1y ago

It depends on the area of law but there's generally a balancing test as to whether or not a court should issue an injunction. There are a number of factors such as the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed but also if the injunction (or lack thereof) causes permanent harm or can be reversed. Imagine a court was considering the issue from years ago when Australian authorities were deciding to release the cane toad to kill sugar cane pests. That's not a decision taht you can take back. Once they're released, there's really no rolling that back. So a court would generally side on issuing an injunction pending an appeal for that very reason. As a historical side note, the cane toad was released and it's been an ecological disaster ever since. Now imagine another case where a government agency is requiring all fishing boats to install transponders and they're relatively cheap. There's reallly no irreversible harm either way so a court will tend to look instead at the likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing instead. At least that's how it should work. In practice, particularly with the Supreme Court through its entire history, there's a fairly accurate way of predicting how they'll rule: pick the side that favors the wealthy and powerful and that's how they'll rule way more often than not. There are exceptions to this and it's not universal (eg decisions rolling back segregation) but it is (IMHO) arguably the best predictor.

rufus_foreman 1y ago

"When considering whether to grant a stay, this Court looks to four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”" -- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1063_6j37.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1063_6j37.pdf

boroboro4 1y ago

I think this ruling is terrible and dissent is very well justified exactly for the reasons you put here. It’s sad we got such a terrible Supreme Court which is seemingly exist to only keep giving (republican) executive whatever they want.