A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has denied a motion from Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to dismiss a lawsuit filed against them, finding that they “unsuccessfully” attempted to downplay the tech billionaire’s role. However, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan granted President Donald Trump’s request to be removed from the case.
Judge Chutkan ruled on Tuesday that the multistate lawsuit against President Trump’s ally, Elon Musk, and DOGE can proceed, while President Trump himself will no longer be a defendant. As previously reported by Law&Crime, a coalition of 14 states filed suit against Musk, DOGE, and President Trump in February, alleging that the appointment of Musk to lead DOGE, an entity not officially recognized as a government agency, violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
The state attorneys general argued that President Trump, Musk, and DOGE overstepped their authority by diminishing the size of government agencies and terminating federal employees, as Musk was never confirmed by the Senate, and Congress never authorized the creation of DOGE. President Trump established DOGE through an executive order to “implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” The defendants had sought a dismissal of the case, arguing that Musk served merely as an adviser without formal authority. Judge Chutkan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, rejected this argument.
Judge Chutkan stated that the Constitution does not allow the Executive branch to seize complete appointment power by unilaterally creating a federal agency via executive order and then exempting its principal officer from constitutional oversight by labeling them a mere “adviser.” She asserted that this is precisely the scenario the plaintiffs allege.
The judge further criticized the defendants’ “circular reading of the Appointments Clause,” which she said would permit the President to reorganize the entire federal government without legislative approval and evade judicial review.
In her ruling, Judge Chutkan elaborated that the defendants argued the Appointments Clause hinges solely on de jure (legal) authority, not de facto (actual) authority. They contended that a violation could only occur if an office were lawfully established and vested with formal power, suggesting that actions taken by the Executive branch without Congressional authorization could not constitute a violation. Judge Chutkan dismissed this reasoning, noting that it would essentially grant the President unlimited power, unchecked by the Constitution’s separation of powers.
She affirmed that the judiciary has a duty to uphold the constitutional framework of separated powers and rejected the defendants’ interpretation of the Appointments Clause. Judge Chutkan’s decision to allow the case against Musk and DOGE to continue represents a significant win for the plaintiff states, especially considering her prior skepticism towards their request for a temporary restraining order against them.
However, Judge Chutkan also granted a victory to President Trump by dismissing him from the case. This occurred despite President Trump’s past verbal attacks on Judge Chutkan and accusations of personal bias. The judge firmly denied these accusations. Judge Chutkan found that the plaintiff states’ argument that President Trump could be constrained by a declaratory judgment regarding the defendants’ actions overstepping constitutional authority did not hold up under existing legal precedent, particularly concerning the Executive’s exclusive powers under the Constitution.
While Musk announced in April during a Tesla earnings call his intention to “significantly” reduce his involvement with DOGE, the plaintiff states, led by New Mexico, contend that he maintains a “continuing position” within the organization. Judge Chutkan found sufficient grounds to allow the case against Musk to proceed.
Musk’s involvement with DOGE and his prominent presence in Washington, D.C., reportedly led to a decline in his popularity during the initial months of President Trump’s second term. This also coincided with a dip in Tesla’s earnings. Judge Chutkan also presided over President Trump’s federal election interference case, which was dismissed following President Trump’s 2024 electoral victory at the request of special counsel Jack Smith.
Be First to Comment