Difficult to convince courts

Analysis: Why it's been difficult to convince courts to curb Elon Musk's power

From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed

It’s hard to convince courts to limit Elon Musk’s power in the federal government right now, when no one can say definitively what he’s doing.

Federal judges four times in recent days have said plaintiffs suing to curtail the Department of Government Efficiency’s work at agencies haven’t been able to muster enough legal reasons for the courts to step in immediately.

The latest, on Tuesday, was Judge Tanya Chutkan of the DC District Court, who told attorneys general from Democratic-led states they hadn’t shown they faced “imminent, irreparable harm” because of DOGE’s work at seven federal agencies. Three other times since this weekend, colleagues of Chutkan on the federal bench in Washington, DC, made similar calls.

The evidence of what DOGE’s role is in hiring and firing at agencies is still thin, and the risk to sensitive data is still a question mark as DOGE staffers with tech specialties fan out across the government and, by some accounts, look at and work on code behind sensitive computer systems.

How the administration describes Musk’s specific position in the federal government has been a moving target, too, with him at first being called in court a special government employee, like a consultant, then lawyers telling a court he’s not the administrator of DOGE — and not even an employee of the agency.

Because the bar is high in court to obtain temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, the lawsuits attempting to stop Musk’s emissaries from accessing private data at various federal agencies have fallen short, at least for now.

Chutkan’s case from the attorneys general this week signals broader challenges to Musk’s authority may struggle in their early stages too.

The cases continue, however, and could have stronger arguments at later stages, especially as more emerges on what DOGE has done.