A federal judge in Washington, D.C., appeared unconvinced by a request from 14 states seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Trump administration, which would prevent tech billionaire Elon Musk and his associates at DOGE from accessing federal agency data and firing government employees.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan expressed skepticism during Monday’s hearing, questioning whether the plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient evidence of imminent harm required for such “extraordinary” relief.
She described the TRO request as a potential “prophylactic TRO,” a legal remedy that is typically not granted without concrete proof of harm. Chutkan’s questions indicated that she was not inclined to approve the states’ request at this stage.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed last week by a coalition of 14 states, alleging that President Donald Trump’s decision to grant extensive power to Musk and DOGE violated the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
The plaintiffs argue that Musk was given “virtually unchecked authority” without proper legal foundation or congressional oversight, transforming his position into a source of “chaos” and potentially undermining the separation of powers doctrine.
The plaintiffs assert that the executive branch does not have the authority to create or dismantle federal agencies unilaterally and that Musk’s influence over federal operations violates the constitutional checks and balances in place.
“The Appointments Clause was designed to protect against such tyranny,” the states’ attorneys wrote in their complaint, urging the court to act before further harm occurs.
However, during the hearing, Judge Chutkan pressed the plaintiffs’ attorney, Anjana Samant, to provide clear evidence of imminent harm. When Samant cited news reports of DOGE’s activities, Chutkan promptly rejected this argument, emphasizing that courts cannot act based on media reports alone.
She also questioned Samant’s claim that states would suffer irreparable harm, specifically in relation to funding cuts for education programs in New Mexico. Chutkan seemed unconvinced, suggesting that a court ruling could remedy any alleged harm by restoring funding if necessary.
The Justice Department, represented by attorney Joshua Gardner, also pushed back on the plaintiffs’ allegations. Gardner argued that Musk had no formal or actual authority within the government to make decisions, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims as lacking factual support.
Chutkan disagreed with this assessment, challenging the DOJ’s position and questioning whether it was prepared to address the alleged mass firings of federal employees. Gardner was unable to confirm the accuracy of reports regarding widespread terminations, which Chutkan deemed a crucial issue for the case.
As the hearing progressed, Chutkan expressed concern over Musk’s apparent control over government operations, noting the unprecedented nature of the situation.
She pointed to the potential implications of a private citizen, through DOGE, directing federal activities, including hiring, firing, and terminating government contracts, all without congressional oversight. Chutkan suggested that these arguments might have merit as the litigation continues.
While she seemed hesitant to grant the TRO, Judge Chutkan indicated that the plaintiffs’ arguments on the merits of the case could lead to favorable outcomes in the future, especially regarding Musk’s role in government affairs. Chutkan stated she would issue a ruling within the next 24 hours.
