Washington's latest power play just got a green light from the Supreme Court to dive into the personal data of millions of Americans.

The high court’s ruling on Friday paved the way for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a White House initiative, to access sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) records while legal battles continue. As reported by CBS News, this decision temporarily lifted a federal injunction that had restricted DOGE’s reach into these systems.

President Trump set up DOGE on day one of his return to the White House, tasking it with slashing federal bloat and sending team members across agencies to streamline operations. Now, with the Supreme Court’s unsigned order, DOGE staff can tap into SSA databases brimming with Social Security numbers, medical histories, and financial details. It’s a move that’s got efficiency hawks cheering and privacy advocates sounding the alarm.

Legal Battle Over Privacy Concerns

The Supreme Court’s decision overturned a Maryland district court’s injunction from April, where Judge Ellen Hollander had ruled that the SSA’s data-sharing with DOGE likely violated the Privacy Act and federal rulemaking laws. She had permitted limited access to anonymized data, but only with strict conditions like background checks and training for DOGE members.

The Trump administration wasn’t having it, appealing to the 4th Circuit, which refused to lift the block, before taking their case to the Supreme Court for emergency relief. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that blocking access hampers efforts to cut waste and fraud in government systems. Well, it seems the highest court agreed—sometimes you’ve got to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

The justices, in their ruling, stated that SSA could grant DOGE team members access to records to perform their duties under current circumstances. But not everyone on the bench was on board—Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, raising serious privacy red flags.

Dissenting Voices Warn of Risks

Justice Jackson, joined by Sotomayor, didn’t mince words, cautioning that this move poses “grave privacy risks for millions.” She argued it’s reckless to allow unfettered access before confirming if federal law even permits it.

Continuing her dissent, Jackson criticized the court for treating what should be an extraordinary request as just another day at the office for this administration. When did safeguarding personal data become such a low priority?

The lawsuit sparking this showdown came from two labor unions and an advocacy group, claiming the SSA unlawfully handed DOGE the keys to vast troves of personal information. They argued this breaks from the agency’s long-standing commitment to data security, putting Americans’ privacy on the chopping block.

Plaintiffs Highlight Privacy Violations

Plaintiffs’ lawyers didn’t hold back in their filings, pointing out that the SSA’s sudden shift to grant sweeping access marks a dangerous departure from past practices. They stressed that millions rely on the agency to protect their confidential information, and DOGE’s involvement introduces unaddressed risks.

They also warned that every day DOGE has access to this sensitive data, the harm to their members—and all Americans—grows. If privacy isn’t a fundamental right worth defending, then what is?

On the flip side, Sauer defended the administration’s stance, asserting that DOGE team members need access to these systems to modernize operations and root out inefficiencies. He accused the district court of overstepping by treating agency employees as intruders rather than reformers with a critical mission.

DOGE’s Broader Mission Sparks Controversy

DOGE’s broader push to downsize government hasn’t been without friction, with legal challenges popping up over its efforts to access data at agencies like the Departments of Treasury and Education, as well as the Office of Personnel Management. Critics question whether the task force is complying with the Privacy Act, designed to shield Americans’ private information from misuse.

Adding to the drama, DOGE’s prior leadership under Elon Musk—who stepped away from government service last week—has faced separate lawsuits alleging constitutional violations, including a Maryland judge’s ruling that shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development overstepped legal bounds. That decision is currently paused pending an appeal.

At the end of the day, this Supreme Court ruling hands DOGE a significant win in its quest to overhaul federal operations, but the fight over privacy and executive power is far from over. As legal battles rage on, one thing’s clear: balancing efficiency with individual rights is a tightrope walk, and not everyone’s convinced the safety net is in place. Perhaps Washington could use a reminder that trust, once broken, isn’t easily rebuilt.