Can People See DOGE's Records? Supreme Court Takes Up Key Fight

The country's highest court will decide whether a watchdog group can obtain information to help determine whether DOGE is subject to the Federal Records Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will take up a case to decide whether a watchdog can obtain information to help determine whether the now-defunct Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is subject to the federal Public Records Act.

This is the latest update on a lawsuit filed by a nonprofit called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) that claims DOGE, an initiative spearheaded by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Trump administration has argued that FOIA does not apply to DOGE because it was not a federal agency but an advisory body to the president.

According to the federal government's website, FOIA, which was signed into law in 1966 by President Lyndon B. Johnson passed, "gives the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency." Johnson said at the time that he hoped the government would weigh national security, individual privacy, confidential government deliberations and the benefit of an informed constituency against the law.

"The founding principle of FOIA is that in a democracy it's very important to have an informed citizenry," said Sarah Creighton, an associate professor of law at Georgetown and former deputy senior counsel at American Oversight, a nonprofit government transparency organization. "The whole idea is that we need an informed public to vote."

The justices have agreed to hear arguments about whether and to what extent discovery can be made for CREW v. DOGE SERV. This stage of the legal process allows opposing parties to gather information, including records and depositions, with which to make their case.

Experts say the decision not only affects pending litigation, but may also have implications for the future of government transparency.

How did the DOGE records case reach the Supreme Court?

CREW filed a January 24, 2025 FOIA request for expedited processing of information about DOGE, seeking information about its structure and communications with other agencies. When it did not receive the requested documents, the organization filed a complaint.

Crew chief Noah Bookbinder said in a statement announcing the lawsuit on February 20, 2025: "The law is clear about how government records must be kept so that they are readily and easily accessible when the public requests them. If the government valued transparency, compliance with records laws would be a priority." does."

"The litigation ended up in the DOGE case, and what Crews hoped to test with his lawsuit was whether DOGE is subject to FOIA," said Ryan Molloy, senior policy advisor at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 15, 2025, Judge Christopher Cooper, representing the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled that the case could proceed to discovery. However, in May 2025, the Department of Justice filed an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the discovery orders on May 23, 2025. On June 6, 2025, it ordered the Court of Appeals to limit the appeals, finding that the issues related to the DOGE's recommendations and whether the agencies followed them were "improperly set out."

CREW then filed its own motions for discovery, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld them. The Trump administration filed a re-appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court had not adhered to the previous ruling by granting "broad and intrusive discovery."

In response, the Supreme Court this week agreed to take up the question of whether the case can proceed to discovery. It is currently unclear when oral arguments will begin, but a ruling is expected at the end of the term in late June or early July 2027.

What does the DOGE ruling of the Supreme Court mean for public access?

According to Creighton, the Supreme Court's ruling will determine whether CREW can gain access to information that could help it assert that DOGE is acting as a federal official subject to FOIA. Otherwise, the nonprofit may have difficulty pursuing its argument.

Margaret Koka, Frank R. Law Chair; "Because so much about how DOGE operates ... has not been publicly explained, discovery is the only way to uncover key facts about DOGE's operations and exercise of power," said Strong at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, who joined a brief supporting CREW as an outside legal expert. These details will clarify whether he actually exercises independent powers or acts as an adviser to the president.

Creighton says the outcome of the case could have ramifications beyond the current administration.

"Whether an entity is subject to FOIA really determines how much information the public knows about it, and whether [entities] have an obligation to disclose their records to the public," Creighton says.

The current issue before the Supreme Court is about discovery, but Creighton cautions that if the Supreme Court ultimately rules that DOGE is not covered by FOIA, it could potentially "open the door for future presidents to create entities within the executive office of the president that do important things — even potentially related work to agencies that FOIA would normally allow to do outside of FOIA."

CREW did not respond to Ambassador Arjan's request for comment, but previously said government transparency was at stake.

Lower courts have uniformly ruled that CREW is entitled to discovery in this case to help the court determine whether DOGE has the kind of authority that would make it subject to FOIA, Crew senior counsel Nickle Suess told POLITICO in a statement Tuesday. "We will continue to seek transparency for the American people, who deserve to know the details of the Trump administration's efforts to unilaterally rebuild the federal government."

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, meanwhile, argued in his filing with the Supreme Court that the appeals court ruling "intrudes on the independence and confidentiality of the president's advisers and creates time-consuming and burdensome discovery claims."

He also claimed that the lower court's decision "threatens to burden future presidential administrations" with similar lawsuits.

The White House referred Ambassador Arjan to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

What other legal cases has the Trump administration faced?

The DOGE dispute is among several legal battles over access and preservation of government records under the Trump administration.

In 2025, the American watchdog filed a lawsuit asking a court to order several national security officials to withhold official communications exchanged over the Signal encrypted messaging program. The request came after officials were found to be exchanging messages about planned military strikes in Yemen. The case is still ongoing.

In April, the same group, along with the American Historical Association, sued the Trump administration over a legal opinion released by the Justice Department that claimed the Presidential Records Act — which stipulates that presidential records be preserved and transferred to the National Archives after the president's departure — is unconstitutional. That case is still ongoing.

While these cases continue, American Oversight has won another records dispute. In August, a federal judge struck down a Department of Energy policy that allowed it to close pending FOIA requests submitted earlier than Oct. 1, 2024, unless the requesters confirmed their interest within 30 days. The court sided with the monitoring group.