DOGE litigation
Alliance for Retired Americans v. Scott Bessent
Date: March 5, 2026
Issue: Whether the U.S. Department of the Treasury violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by permitting individuals associated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access sensitive Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS) records.
Case Summary: A federal court in Washington, D.C., granted summary judgment to the Treasury Department in a lawsuit alleging it violated the APA by DOGE to access sensitive BFS records.
In February 2025, two labor unions and a retirees group (Plaintiffs) sued the Treasury Department, alleging it unlawfully permitted DOGE-associated individuals to access sensitive records without proper authorization or reasoned decision-making. On Jan. 20, 2025, an executive order created DOGE and directed federal agencies to provide it access to systems and records. In response, the Treasury Department allowed its internal “DOGE team” to access sensitive payment systems to review payment flows and recommend improvements for fraud prevention and efficiency. Plaintiffs argued this arrangement exceeded the Treasury Department’s authority and exposed sensitive financial data.
Plaintiffs first sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to halt the data sharing, but the court denied because they failed to show irreparable harm. The Treasury Department then moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing Plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a viable APA claim because the challenged conduct did not constitute final agency action. In response, Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the Treasury Department acted unlawfully in granting DOGE unfettered access to personal information on BFS systems.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with the Treasury Department and granted its motion for summary judgment. The court first concluded that Plaintiffs had standing because they alleged a concrete and particularized injury based on the unlawful disclosure of their members’ sensitive financial information. The court explained that this harm closely resembled a recognized privacy injury, such as intrusion upon seclusion, and satisfied Article III at the pleading stage. Accepting the allegations as true, the court determined the alleged unauthorized sharing of sensitive financial data would offend a reasonable person and therefore qualified as a cognizable injury, so it denied the Treasury Department’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The court then concluded the Treasury Department’s acts were not a judicially reviewable final agency action. While the Plaintiffs alleged that the Treasury Department shared sensitive data outside the agency, the record showed that the data sharing occurred within the Treasury Department and involved agency employees rather than outside parties, according to the court. Because final agency action requires a completed decision that creates legal consequences, the court reasoned this internal data sharing reflected routine agency operations rather than a final, binding action. The court also explained that a single unauthorized disclosure outside the agency did not show a broader policy of external data sharing and did not change the analysis. It emphasized that treating internal data-access decisions as final agency action would subject routine agency operations to judicial review.
The court also concluded non-statutory ultra vires review is not available. Ultra vires review allows courts to invalidate actions taken by government officials that exceed their lawful authority. The term ultra vires means “beyond the powers” and describes actions that fall outside an entity’s legal or constitutional scope and are thus invalid and subject to challenge. This form of review applies only in narrow circumstances and requires Plaintiffs to show that no alternative remedies exist and that the agency clearly acted beyond its statutory authority. Here, the court determined that Plaintiffs could not meet that demanding standard because other remedies remained available, including relief under the Privacy Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and potential APA review if the agency engaged in external data sharing. The court also explained Plaintiffs did not show the type of clear and extreme statutory violation required to justify ultra vires relief.
Bottom Line: The court ruled that the Treasury Department’s internal data sharing with DOGE personnel did not violate the APA because it was not a final agency action. [include whether notice of appeal was filed].
Document: Opinion
