In a decision that has raised eyebrows and set off alarm bells, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court has removed a lower court’s stay, granting the Department of Government Enforcement (DOGE) access to sensitive Social Security data belonging to American citizens. Strikingly, the government did not provide a convincing rationale for why it requires this personal information, yet that seemed to matter little to the conservative justices.
However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was not willing to let this slide without a fight.
In her dissenting opinion, she articulated her concerns:
The decision to grant the Government a stay under such a weak argument is fundamentally corrosive to our judicial system. We have consistently maintained that an applicant must justify their request for a stay by demonstrating that they will suffer “irreparable harm” without it, as outlined in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). The notion that the Government can bypass these established requirements sets a troubling precedent.
Accepting this line of reasoning implies that this Court is willing to deviate from our established legal standards and the fundamental principles of our justice system, such as respect for lower court decisions and equal treatment under the law. It implies that while other applicants must provide substantial justification beyond mere inconvenience, the Government can waltz into court with little more than a complaint and still receive favorable treatment. This is a jarring thought, considering the implications for the enforcement process.
Lower courts are diligently evaluating whether federal law permits the Social Security Administration (SSA) to grant DOGE staff unrestricted access to Americans’ confidential information. The pressing question before us is what should be done with this data in the interim. So far, two lower courts have ruled that DOGE staff should adhere to temporary safeguards regarding data access while litigation unfolds.
Yet, the Government has failed to demonstrate any concrete or irreparable harm that necessitates immediate intervention from this Court. Nevertheless, today’s ruling allows the Government to provide DOGE unrestricted access to sensitive data, despite its inability to show any pressing need or willingness to comply with existing privacy norms, all while the legality of such access remains uncertain.
This ruling regrettably suggests that what would be an extraordinary request for other parties is simply an everyday occurrence for this Administration.
I would advocate for a more equitable approach, requiring DOGE and the Government to follow the same standards that apply to all litigants seeking a stay from this Court: comply with lower court orders until they can conclusively prove that irreparable harm will ensue, necessitating an alternative course of action. Instead, the Court has chosen to exempt the Government from these standard obligations, sacrificing careful judicial decision-making and creating significant privacy risks for millions of Americans.
Justice Jackson’s dissent underscores a critical concern: the Supreme Court’s majority appears to be crafting a double-standard for litigants, thereby undermining the essential work undertaken by lower courts.
The Trump administration, in particular, seems poised to exploit this access to Social Security data to intensify efforts to round up and deport immigrants. Additionally, there are indications that this data will be weaponized as a pretext to cut Social Security benefits by identifying dubious claims of fraud.
This marks a troubling turn and a significant regression for government data privacy. For decades, the federal government has made strides to safeguard the sensitive information of its citizens.
In this instance, the Supreme Court majority has seemingly tossed those safeguards aside, allowing Donald Trump to advance his unpopular agenda.
What are your thoughts on Justice Jackson’s dissent? Share your views in the comments below.
