A conservative Supreme Court majority lifted the lower court stay and allowed Doge to access sensitive social security data from American citizens. The government never argued why Doge needed non-anonymous data on Americans, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the conservative majority.
That was very important to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote to her Opposition:
In my view, staying with the government in suggestions of this totally lacking harm is also systematically corrosive. We informed everyone that it was “critical” for the applicant to justify the request for a stay from this court by showing that he would be irreparably injured without a stay. Therefore, the idea that the government does not need to meet the irreparable harm burden that other applicants actually have is not costly for the courts to determine the merits of the challenges to illegal activities, as other litigators would require.
If you accept this line of discussion, you will receive a nasty message. This court is to allow for certain litigants to deviate from the basic standards of our judicial system (such as lower court decisions and equal justice under the law) and the basic norms of the judicial system. Essentially, other stay applicants must point out more than the displeasedness of compliance with lower court orders they dislike, but the government says that it can get closer to the bars of the court with more than that and still get relief from this court. It’s particularly surprising to think about the process to implement.
The lower courts are making an effort to quickly assess whether federal law allows the SSA to provide Doge staff with free access to confidential American information. The only question before us today is what should happen to all that data in the meantime. Two lower courts say DOGE staff must comply with temporary safeguards regarding data access while the lawsuit is underway.
Meanwhile, here the government clearly failed to meet at that moment, as it does not show that it will suffer concrete or irreparable damages unless this court intervenes immediately. However, today the courts allow stays that allow governments to provide free data access to Doge if they are unable to demonstrate the need or interest in compliance with existing privacy safeguards and before they can ensure they are aware of federal law.
And so, unfortunately, the court suggests that it is only a normal day of this administration’s docket that makes an extraordinary demand for everyone else.
I will proceed without fear of asking Doge and the government what all other litigators have to do to ensure a stay from this court. Instead, the court chooses to exempt governments from standard obligations, waive prudent judicial decision-making, and create significant privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.
Judge Jackson appears to have said that while the Supreme Court majority sets different rules for different litigators, they are below the lower court work.
The Trump administration plans to use social security data to round up and deport more migrants. They also try to cut social security by using data as a pretense to find fake claims of fraud.
This is a dark day and a huge step for government data privacy. For decades, the federal government has worked so hard to protect the data of Americans.
The Supreme Court majority has dumped it all, allowing Donald Trump to pursue his unpopular agenda.
What do you think of Judge Jackson’s objection? Discuss your thoughts in the comments below.
