• The Supreme Court permits DOGE access to Social Security data containing personal information of millions.
• This decision temporarily blocks a lower court’s ruling aimed at safeguarding privacy.
• The ruling raises concerns about the privacy of sensitive data amid ongoing litigation.
• The court's decision was aligned with the Trump administration's efforts to restructure federal agencies.
• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned of "grave privacy risks" for Americans due to this ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can access Social Security Administration (SSA) data containing sensitive personal information about millions of Americans. The decision overturns a previous injunction from a Maryland district judge that had limited DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" amidst concerns about privacy violations under federal law, according to HuffPost and Reuters.

The Supreme Court's unsigned order, which was passed by a conservative 6-3 majority, emphasized that the SSA must facilitate DOGE's operational access to the agency records necessary for its mission, as articulated by the Trump administration. Critics, including the court’s three liberal justices, strongly dissented, raising alarm over potential violations of privacy standards, particularly given the sensitive nature of the data involved which includes financial and medical records, according to The New York Times and Los Angeles Times.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed severe concerns regarding the implications of this ruling, stating, "the Court is… granting unfettered access to DOGE regardless—despite its failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards." This sentiment was echoed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined Jackson's opinion, while Justice Elena Kagan also voiced opposition to the administration's stance, according to India Times and Al Jazeera.

Following this ruling, advocacy groups and labor unions, including the American Federation of Teachers and others, expressed dissatisfaction with the court's decision, labeling it as a "sad day for democracy." They had previously argued that DOGE’s access could lead to "targeted snooping" into private lives, particularly as the implementation of such broad access is perceived as unnecessary and harmful, as detailed by South China Morning Post and AA.

Additionally, this ruling comes amid ongoing tensions and debates regarding the structure and purpose of DOGE, especially in light of Musk's departure from government roles. The Court's decision also limits transparency measures intended to keep DOGE accountable, prompting further scrutiny of the administration's approach to federal agency reform, according to The Hill.