The AFL-CIO and other unions failed to convince a federal judge to temporarily halt the Department of Government Efficiency from moving forward with plans to access computer systems and data at the US Department of Labor.
Judge
“So although the Court harbors concerns about defendants’ alleged conduct, it must deny plaintiffs’ motion at this time,” Bates wrote, ordering the parties to file a proposed briefing schedule for a preliminary injunction.
The denial of the emergency motion is yet another win for the Trump administration in a series of legal challenges brought by unions and advocacy groups against DOGE’s plans to tap into federal agency data. Earlier this week, a judge similarly allowed select DOGE staff to have limited access to Treasury Department data in a separate legal challenge.
The DOL maintains databases of medical and benefits information for people with workers’ compensation or Black Lung claims; the identities of workers who have filed complaints with the agency; and market-moving Bureau of Labor Statistics data, according to the unions’ complaint.
The groups filed the lawsuit to shield the DOL’s data on Feb. 5 after learning that DOGE officials were scheduled to visit the agency’s headquarters in downtown Washington that same day. The department later agreed that it wouldn’t allow DOGE access to its data until after the court decided on the temporary restraining order request Friday, according to court filings in the case.
More than 100 people attended a protest outside the Frances Perkins Building on Feb. 5, with several Democratic lawmakers and AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler in attendance. Rep. Bobby Scott (Va.), the highest ranking Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee, also sent a request Feb. 6 to the Government Accountability Office to launch a probe into the security of information systems at the DOL and other agencies.
The TRO request argued that the attempt to access the DOL’s sensitive information systems ran afoul of the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Privacy Act requires agencies to get consent from individuals if their records are disclosed to another agency.
No Standing
Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, noted that the unions failed to identify a single member who would be harmed by DOGE’s access to the data and questioned whether the organizations would have to expend more resources because of the access.
“Organizations—like plaintiffs here—have two routes for establishing standing: asserting an injury to their members (i.e., associational standing) or asserting its own injury (i.e., organizational standing),” Bates wrote. “Plaintiffs argue they satisfy both. But, on the present record, they satisfy neither.”
In response to the suit, the Trump administration had also argued the plaintiffs lacked standing..
“They have not identified members of their organizations who will be harmed by these as-yet-untaken actions, and can only speculate as to how actions that have yet to take place might harm their own missions,” attorneys for the government argued in a court filing Feb. 7.
The government also said the TRO should be denied because there was no final agency action to challenge under the APA and that DOGE employees serving as “DOL detailees” should resolve any legal issues surrounding the Privacy Act.
The lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, Communications Workers of America, and the Economic Policy Institute.
During the Friday hearing, Bates proposed that the parties consider reaching an agreement limiting DOGE’s access to staff specifically detailed to the agency, but after adjourning for an hour, were unable to strike a deal.
The case is: AFL-CIO v. DOL, D.D.C., No. 25-00339, TRO denied 2/7/25.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story: