The United States Supreme Court President Donald Trump on behalf of the administration of the government in two cases – and who should have access to them.
Friday, a six -member conservative majority canceled the lower court ruling that limited Trump’s kind of data Government efficiency department (Dog) can be accessed through the Social Security Administration (SSA).
In a separate case, the majority of the people decided that there was no need to divert the documents under the Freedom of the Government’s Transparency Act (FOIA).
In both cases, the Supreme Court’s three-left judges, Sonia Sotomayer, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, opposed the majority decision.
Trump is at the forefront of his campaign to remodel the federal government and cut the bureaucratic “bloating”.
Unveiled On November 13, just eight days after Trump’s re -election, Da was designed to “dismantle the government bureaucracy, cut off additional rules, reduce wasted costs, and restructure federal agencies.”
First, it is not clear how Da communicates with the executive branch: whether it is an advisory committee, a new department or a non -governmental unit.
But on January 20, when Trump was sworn in for his second period, he Published Existing US Digital Service – A technology initiative established by former President Barack Obama – is reorganized to create a dog.
The government’s efficiency committee is responsible for the widespread test of the federal government, implementing mass dismissal and trying to shutter units such as the US Agency for International Development (USID).
It advertised the cost-saving of it achieved or accused of fraud, although those rights were opposed by journalists and experts.
In addition, Dog’s widespread changes in the federal government made this a matter of review and concern, especially when it requires greater access to sensitive data and systems.
Until last week, Doe was led by Billionaire and Tech Businessman Elon Musk, who was a leading supporter of Trump’s re-election bid. However, musk and have a trump Public -for After the end of the billionaire tenure as a “special government employee” in the White House.
That fall has left the Dog’s future uncertainty.
Accessing Social Security Data
One of his controversial initiatives to Doo Access Social Security DataNames Rooting Waste, fraud and abuse.
At the beginning of Trump’s second period, both the President and the Musk repeated Misleading rights Social security payments are being made to millions of people listed as 150 years or older. But the truth-inspectors quickly denied the allegation.
Instead, they pointed out that the social security administration has implemented the code to automatically stop payments for someone who is alive and over 115 years old.
Cobol programming language flags set up incomplete entries in the social security system with birthdays with birthdays, and perhaps, they pointed out that the Trump administered the confusion of the administration. According to the Inspector General report of 2024, less than 1 percent of Social Security Payments is incorrect.
Still, Trump officials criticized the Social Security Administration, dubbed it as a “biggest Ponji project of all time” and called on to eliminate it.
In March, US District Judge Ellen Lypton Hollandar blocked Dog from preventing uncontrolled access to social security data, referring to the subtle nature of such information.
For example, Social Security Numbers are important in reviewing the identity of a person in the US, and the release of such numbers is at risk for personal privacy.
Lipon Hollandar ruled that “the Dog team has not even recognized or represented the reason for the need for unlimited access to the SSA’s entire record system.” He questioned why he didn’t want the “more corresponding” method to do.
“Instead, the government repeats the need to modernize the system and reveal fraud,” he wrote in his judgment. “Its method of doing so is equivalent to hitting the fly with a sledge hammer.”
However, the judge’s judgment allowed the dog to view anonymous data without personally identifying the information.
However, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Judge Lypton Hollandar Dog had exceeded its authority.
The Supreme Court issued its emergency application on Friday, removing temporary restrictions on Lipton Hollander’s data on the decision not to sign.
But Justice Brown Jackson issued a disagreement with bubbles (Pdf), The Supreme Court indicates that the Supreme Court is ready to break Rs.
“Once again, this court offers its emergency-reactive gear, rushes to the event, and uses its equivalent power to fan the flames instead of extinguishing,” Brown Jackson wrote.
He argued that the Trump administration had not established that any “corrected damage” would occur if temporarily restricted to access social security data.
But by issuing an urgent application of the Trump administration, the court is “making a judicial decision and creating serious privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.”
Does the doo are subject to transparency laws?
The Second Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Dog should submit documents under federal transparency laws.
The question was raised as part of a lawsuit brought by citizens for responsibility and morality in the government watchdog group, Washington.
It argued that Dog’s widespread powers suggested that laws should be subject to laws like FOI, like other executive agencies. But the crew alleged that the distortion around the Dog’s structures was separated from outside filters.
“Publicly available information indicates that the Dog FOIA is subject to the FOIA. The lack of clarity about the Dog’s authority leaves an open question,” the staff said in A. Statement.
The Watchdog group tried to force Dog to be informed about its internal work.
The Supreme Court paused that lower court’s verdict on Friday, though the US District Judge was with the request of staff for documents in April (Pdf). It sent the case to the appeal court for greater consideration, with indications that the April order should be compressed.
“No inquiry can turn on the ability to persuade existence that a unit is an agency for the purposes of the Information Freedom Act,” the Supreme Court has ruled.
It said the courts need to exercise “respect and restraint” for “internal” executive communications.
