The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a watchdog lawsuit seeking public records from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), marking the second time the court has intervened in the case.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) argues DOGE is a federal agency and therefore must comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Trump administration contends DOGE is exempt as a presidential advisory body, and asked the court to take up the case.
Last year the Supreme Court's conservative majority reined in a district court order that required the government to produce DOGE records, concluding that US District Judge Christopher Cooper had ruled too broadly. Cooper had sided with CREW and ordered expedited processing of the records request, and an appeals court panel upheld that decision.
The administration argues the appeals court ignored the Supreme Court's direction to consider separation-of-powers concerns and intruded on the "autonomy and confidentiality" of presidential advisers. "Subjecting advisory bodies to intrusive discovery triggers the very concerns that Congress sought to avoid by excluding presidential advisory bodies from FOIA's reach," Justice Department lawyers wrote.
The administration also objects to the appeals court allowing plaintiffs to take a sworn deposition from DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason.
CREW says the appeals court complied with the previous order. "Undisputed facts in the public record, including the President's statements, confirmed that DOGE was wielding enormous independent authority across the federal government," its lawyers wrote. CREW lawyer Nikhel Sus said in a statement that the group would "continue to pursue transparency for the American people, who deserve to know the details of the Trump Administration's efforts to unilaterally remake the federal government."
DOGE has said it cut tens of billions of dollars in expenditures, though outside financial experts found its claims difficult to verify. Federal auditors found some reported savings were incorrect, lacked supporting evidence or involved terminations that were already counted.