Justices Clarence Thomas

June 7 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data.

On Friday, the Court’s six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population.

In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions.

In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: “We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.”

The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander’s decision.

The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans.

They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,” the groups said in a statement. “This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE’s affiliates to steal Americans’ private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public’s most sensitive data as this case moves forward.”

Social Security Works posted on X: “No one in history — no commissioner, no president, no one — has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have.”

White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that “the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law.”

Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the “Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court’s intervention. In essence, the ‘urgency’ underlying the government’s stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.”

She concluded her dissent by writing: “The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.”

Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs “from cradle to grave.”

“While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have ‘God-level’ access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more,” Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”

Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers.

DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency.

“These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government’s records to much-needed scrutiny,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion.

The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents’ names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare.

SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The plaintiffs wrote: “The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure — and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it.”

Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that”The Supreme Court’s ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.”

On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take.

Musk called Social Security “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28.

The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers’ payroll tax payments to people who are already retired.

The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.

April 19 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court early Saturday paused the deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.

The court, on a 7-2 split, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting, issued a two-paragraph order early Saturday halting the deportations.

“Upon action by the Fifth Circuit, the Solicitor General is invited to file a response to the application before this Court as soon as possible. The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court,” the justices wrote in the order.

The Alien Enemies Act is a wartime authority that allows the president to detain or deport natives and citizens of an enemy nation. It was last invoked in World War II when people of Japanese descent were imprisoned without trial in internment camps.

This is the second time the Supreme Court has acted on President Donald Trump‘s use of the act. Last week, the court allowed Trump to use the authority but migrants being removed needed to receive notice and can have their deportation reviewed by a federal court.

The justices also ruled that migrants could only challenge their deportations in court districts where the facilities they are being detained are located.

On Friday, attorneys for the Venezuelans filed an emergency appeal that the migrants, being held at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, about 204 miles west of Dallas, were at immediate risk of being deported but were given less than 24 hours to challenge their deportation.

“I am sympathetic to everything you’re saying, I just don’t I think I have the power to do anything,” District Court Judge James Boasberg told a lawyer for the migrants at an emergency hearing Friday night.

Boasberg, who asked an attorney for the Trump administration when it will resume deportations, said he decided not to rule because of “where the issue stands in the 5th Circuit and the Supreme Court.” The Fifth Circuit considers appeals coming out of Texas.

Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign told the court that the Department of Homeland Security “reserves the right to remove migrants Saturday.”

Boasberg told ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who is representing the migrants, that the notice they received is “very troubling” and likely does not comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Boasberg has ordered contempt proceedings against the Trump administration for allegedly defying his earlier order, although on Friday nigh, an appeals court in the District of Columbia issued an administrative pause on Boasberg’s plans.

The Trump administration has said it has the authority to swiftly remove immigrants they accuse of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang the Alien Enemies Act and has defied numerous court orders, including from the Supreme Court, as it moves to deport alleged gang members.

Trump signed an executive order on March 15 designating the Venezuelan gang as a Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of members, “many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.”

Asked about the deportation case, Trump said Friday he was unfamiliar with the particular case but said that “if they’re bad people, I would certainly authorize it.”

“That’s why I was elected. A judge wasn’t elected,” he later added in comments at the White House.

April 7 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision Monday allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting alleged members of Venezuela’s Tren de Araragua gang to El Salvador based on the 1798 Allies Enemies Act.

But the justices ruled that the government must give deportees “reasonable time” to challenge their removal in court in the United States before being deported.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on March 28 to lift a lower court order.

The 25-page unsigned opinion vacated a decision by the U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia on March 24 that blocked use the wartime law with little or no due process. It was a temporary restraining order by the judge appointed by George H.W. Bush. On March 26, the District Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of Boasberg restraining order.

The Supreme Court majority was Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Conservative Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberals Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Writing a concurring opinion was Cavanaugh with dissenting opinions by Sotomayor and Jackson.

Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were nominated by Donald Trump during his first term as president.

“The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself. A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

The five plaintiffs are suspected gang members but were not on the deportation flights. They remain in custody in Texas and appeared before a judge.

“Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief ”necessarily imply the invalidity’ of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas,” the high court ruled.

The opinion added: “the order and percuriam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, that venue lies in the district of confinement.”

A three-member appeals court heard arguments for one hour on the same day as Brosbger issued his order to halt flights. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush and Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of President Barack Obama, ruled in favor of continuing Boasberg’s restraining order while Justin Walker, appointed by Donald Trump in his first term, dissented.

Boasberg said use of the Alien Enemies Act “implicates a host of complicated legal issues” but didn’t decide whether the law was properly invoked.

“Federal courts are equipped to adjudicate that question when individuals threatened with detention and removal challenge their designation as such,” he ruled. “Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge.”

Under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, the Justice Administration believes it has the authority because they are a “hybrid criminal state” invading the United States though it has been only invoked in times of declared war against other countries. They were described as the “worst of the worst.”

There were 228 deportations on two flights to El Salvador on March 15, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele announced on social media.

Boasberg ordered the government to turn the planes around in flight but lawyers contend he had no authority to do that.

Venezuela’s Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello none of the several hundred deported to El Savador’s maximum-security Terrorism Confinement Center belong to the gang.

U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texa, last week filed impeachment articles against Boasberg. According to the U.S. Constitution, removal is for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Despite the judge’s order, the Justice Department announced plans to deport three other alleged Tren de Aragua gang members to Chile under the 1798 act. DOJ described Gamez Finol, Miguel Oyola Jimenez and Edgar Javier Benitez Rubio as “alien enemies” and the “illegally entered the United States after allegedy committing horrific crimes in Chile.”

The court ruled against the temporary restraining order, granting the Trump administration’s request to allow it to halt funding of previously approved education grants until a federal appellate court rules in the matter.

Federal government is likely to succeed

“The district court’s ‘basis for issuing the order [is]strongly challenged’ as the government is likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the [Administrative Procedure Act],” the three-page, unattributed SCOTUS ruling says.

“The district court’s order also carries many of the hallmarks of a preliminary injunction,” the SCOTUS ruling says.

The U.S. District Court for Massachusetts on March 10 granted a temporary restraining order to stop the Trump administration from halting funding for education-related grants and extended the order on March 24.

“The order also requires the government to pay out past-due grant obligations and to continue paying obligations as they accrue,” the SCOTUS ruling says.

“But, as we have recognized, the APA’s limited waiver of immunity does not extend to orders ‘to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money.'”

Such legal challenges are the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, the ruling says.

Withdrawn grant funds are unlikely to be recovered

The 5-3 SCOTUS ruling agrees with the federal government’s argument that it is unlikely to recover grant funds once they are disbursed.

“No grantee ‘promised to return withdrawn funds should its grant termination be re-instated,'” the SCOTUS majority decision says, adding that the district court also did not impose a bond on the grantees to ensure the potential return of withdrawn funds.

“By contrast, the government compellingly argues that respondents would not suffer irreparable harm while the temporary restraining order is stayed,” the SCOTUS ruling says. “Respondents have represented … that they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running.”

The ruling says that if the plaintiffs eventually prevail in their claims against the Trump administration, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds.

“If respondents instead decline to keep the programs operating, then any ensuring irreparable harm would be of their own making,” the majority opinion says.

The district court ruling said that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed based on their claims under the APA, which grants sovereign immunity to the federal government.

“Sovereign immunity means that ‘the United States cannot be sued in their courts without their consent,'” according to the Administrative Conference of the United States.

“‘Congress has an absolute discretion to specify the cases and contingencies in which the liability of the government is submitted to the. courts for judicial determination,'” the ACUS says.

Trump administration challenges district court’s ruling

The Trump administration and the Department of Education on March 26 appealed the lower court’s restraining order and sought to have the ruling vacated.

The appeal also sought an immediate administrative stay of the order requiring the government to pay past-due grants and other funding obligations.

The SCOTUS blocked the lower court’s restraining order against the Trump administration pending the outcome of the case that now is before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito Jr., Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch ruled in favor of overturning the temporary restraining order.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. did not rule in the matter but said he would have joined Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissenting.

Kagan’s dissenting opinion said the SCOTUS’ decision harms states, many of which have curtailed teacher training programs due to a lack of grant funding.

Brown Jackson likewise said the SCOTUS ruling inflicts “significant harms on plaintiff states” and the ruling is “entirely unwarranted.”

“We do not ordinarily exercise jurisdiction over TROs, and this one is no different,” she said.

“Instead of allowing free-range debate, many colleges are more interested in protecting students from ideas that make them uncomfortable,” the advocacy group told the Supreme Court in court documents.

However, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, known to be conservative members of the bench, dissented and wanted to hear the case.

“Given the number of schools with bias response teams, this Court eventually will need to resolve the split over a student’s right to challenge such programs,” Thomas wrote Monday.

Describing the group as a “frequent flier of lawsuits against higher-education institutions,” Indiana University attorneys urged the court to turn the case away.

It was rejected by the justices on behalf of a group of anonymous student that Free Speech says wanted to freely express opinions on a number of topics like the biology on transgender people and immigration, which some say is “hate speech.”

A “bias incident,” according to Indiana University, is “any conduct, speech, or expression, motivated in whole or in part by bias or prejudice meant to intimidate, demean, mock, degrade, marginalize, or threaten individuals or groups based on that individual or group’s actual or perceived identities.”

But university officials said most reports do not identify an accused person by name and offer optional meetings.

According to a court filing, if a student does agree to meet, the school does not require a change in behavior and makes clear they are not disciplined.

“The case is thus not a remotely serviceable vehicle for reaching Speech First’s purportedly split-closing question,” university officials wrote in court filings. “No such split exists, and this appeal would lead nowhere anyway.”

On Monday, Thomas wrote that the court’s refusal to intervene now leaves students subject to a “patchwork of First Amendment rights.”

“With a student’s ability to challenge his university’s bias response policies varying depending on accidents of geography,” added Thomas, citing his dissent when the court turned down a similar case last year against Virginia Tech after the school disbanded its program.

In 2023, a three-panel federal appeals court ruled that a science teacher’s rights were allegedly violated after a principal banned him from bringing a “Make America Great Again” hat to cultural sensitivity training, saying the hat is protected free speech under the First Amendment.