Supreme Court Agrees To Hear DOGE Records Lawsuit, FOIA Law

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, to hear the Trump administration’s challenge in a lawsuit seeking public records about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The case involves a dispute between the administration and government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) over whether courts can allow broad discovery to determine if DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The case is U.S. DOGE Service, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, et al., Supreme Court No. 25-1103. It follows a series of lower-court rulings that allowed CREW to seek information about DOGE’s structure and operations.

The administration argues that the discovery permitted by the lower courts intrudes on the confidentiality of presidential advisers and conflicts with the Supreme Court’s earlier instructions. CREW argues that the remaining discovery is necessary to determine whether DOGE exercised the kind of independent authority that would make it subject to federal records laws.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review the dispute, but it has not decided whether DOGE is subject to FOIA. The questions presented focus on whether the lower court’s discovery decision followed the Supreme Court’s instructions and whether broad discovery can be used to determine whether FOIA applies in the first place.

This is a government records-access case, not a class action. There is no claim form, settlement, or payout for the public.

Quick Facts About the Supreme Court DOGE Records Lawsuit

Detail	Information
Supreme Court case	U.S. DOGE Service, et al. v. U.S. District Court for D.C., et al.
Supreme Court docket	No. 25-1103
D.C. Circuit appeal	No. 25-5130
Underlying district court case	Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service, No. 25-cv-511
Watchdog group	Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Trial judge	U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper
Main statute	Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552
Main dispute	Whether the lower court’s discovery order complies with the Supreme Court’s instructions and separation-of-powers principles
Petition granted	October 13, 2026
Expected ruling	By the end of the Supreme Court’s current Term in June 2027, according to Reuters
Public claim process	None

Why Is the Department of Government Efficiency in the News Again?

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case brings renewed attention to DOGE’s early operations and the public’s ability to obtain records about its work.

CREW wants documents that could help establish how DOGE was organized, what authority it exercised, and how it influenced federal agencies. The records could shed light on DOGE’s involvement in workforce reductions, contract cancellations, grants, and access to government data.

The dispute has already reached the Supreme Court once. In June 2025, the justices ordered the lower courts to narrow parts of the discovery permitted in CREW’s lawsuit. The administration later challenged the lower court’s handling of the remaining discovery.

The current appeal focuses on whether that remaining discovery complies with the Supreme Court’s earlier instructions and whether courts may permit broad fact-finding into a presidential advisory body to determine whether FOIA applies.

What Is the Department of Government Efficiency?

How President Trump created DOGE

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14158. The order renamed the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (USDS) within the Executive Office of the President.

It also established a “U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization” under 5 U.S.C. § 3161, with a scheduled end date of July 4, 2026. The stated goal was to modernize federal technology and software to improve government efficiency and productivity.

Two other executive orders expanded the administration’s DOGE-related initiatives:

Executive Order 14210, February 2025: Directed agencies to prepare for large-scale workforce reductions and provided for DOGE team leads to work within agencies.
Executive Order 14222, February 2025: Directed agencies to review federal contracts, grants, and spending.

DOGE became associated with a wide range of changes across federal agencies, including workforce reductions, spending reviews, and access to government systems.

Why DOGE’s name matters legally

Despite the name “Department of Government Efficiency,” DOGE is not a cabinet-level executive department established by Congress under 5 U.S.C. § 101.

The U.S. DOGE Service was established through an executive order and placed within the Executive Office of the President. That location is important to the FOIA dispute, but the name alone does not determine whether FOIA applies.

Courts examine the entity’s legal status, functions, and authority. The central question is whether DOGE acted only as an adviser to the President or exercised substantial independent authority that could bring it within FOIA’s definition of a federal agency.

Elon Musk’s role in DOGE

Elon Musk was the most visible figure associated with DOGE during the early months of the Trump administration. The White House described him as a special government employee, a status that carries federal ethics and conflict-of-interest requirements, including rules under 18 U.S.C. §§ 202 and 208.

Musk later left his government role. The records dispute, however, concerns DOGE’s institutional status and operations rather than Musk’s personal conduct.

Musk is listed among the petitioners in the Supreme Court petition in his official capacity. He is not the person who filed CREW’s original records request.

What Records Is CREW Seeking?

CREW filed its lawsuit on February 20, 2025, after the U.S. DOGE Service declined to process one of its FOIA requests on the ground that DOGE was not an agency covered by the statute.

The group also sought records under the Federal Records Act, which governs the creation, preservation, and management of federal records.

CREW’s requests concern records that could explain DOGE’s structure, authority, staffing, and influence over government operations. They include:

DOGE’s organizational structure, leadership, and legal authority
Staffing records, financial disclosures, and ethics-related information
Communications involving DOGE and federal agencies
Communications related to DOGE’s formation and organizational changes
Information about DOGE’s role in contract cancellations, workforce reductions, grants, and access to government data

CREW argues that these records are needed to determine how DOGE operated and whether it exercised authority beyond advising the President.

The administration disputes the premise that DOGE is an agency subject to FOIA. That disagreement led to the legal dispute over what records DOGE must process and what discovery a court can allow to determine its status.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Department of Government Efficiency () Records Case, FOIA Law, CREW Lawsuit, and What Happens Next

The Law: Is DOGE an Agency Under FOIA?

1. How the Freedom of Information Act works

The Freedom of Information Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552, gives the public a way to request records from covered federal agencies.

FOIA does not require the government to release every document. Agencies can withhold records that fall within statutory exemptions, but they must follow the law’s procedures when handling requests.

Important FOIA rules include:

Which entities are covered: Section 552(f)(1) defines “agency” to include executive departments, military departments, government corporations, and other establishments in the executive branch, subject to statutory exclusions.
Response deadlines: Under § 552(a)(6), agencies generally must determine whether to comply with a request within 20 working days, subject to extensions allowed by law.
Expedited processing: A requester may seek expedited processing by showing a compelling need under § 552(a)(6)(E).
Court review: Under § 552(a)(4)(B), federal district courts review withholding decisions de novo and can order the production of improperly withheld records.
Attorney’s fees: A requester who meets the statutory requirements may recover attorney’s fees and litigation costs under § 552(a)(4)(E).
Foreseeable harm: Under § 552(a)(8), an agency generally may not withhold information unless it reasonably foresees harm to an interest protected by an exemption or disclosure is prohibited by law.

The key issue in the DOGE case is not whether FOIA exists or whether the public can generally request federal records. It is whether the U.S. DOGE Service falls within the law’s definition of an agency and what courts can investigate to answer that question.

2. The “substantial independent authority” test

Courts have long distinguished between presidential advisers and entities that exercise independent government authority.

Under D.C. Circuit precedent, a component of the Executive Office of the President may be covered by FOIA if it exercises “substantial independent authority.” An entity whose sole function is advising and assisting the President generally falls outside FOIA’s definition of an agency.

Several decisions help explain the legal background:

Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067 (D.C. Cir. 1971): Established the substantial-independent-authority approach used to assess certain entities connected to the Executive Office of the President.
Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (1980): Discussed Congress’s decision not to treat the President’s immediate personal staff and units whose sole function is advising the President as FOIA agencies.
Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1993): Examined whether a presidential task force was an agency under FOIA.
Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993): Addressed the status of the National Security Council under FOIA.
Sweetland v. Walters, 60 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. 1995): Considered the Executive Residence’s status under the statute.
CREW v. Office of Administration, 566 F.3d 219 (D.C. Cir. 2009): Examined the Office of Administration and emphasized the importance of its functions and authority.

These cases help explain why the DOGE dispute is complicated. DOGE operated within the Executive Office of the President, which supports the administration’s argument that it is a presidential advisory body. CREW argues that DOGE exercised authority over agency personnel, contracts, and data in ways that went beyond advice.

The district court found in March 2025 that DOGE was likely covered by FOIA at that preliminary stage. That was not a final ruling resolving the underlying question.

3. Why discovery matters in this FOIA case

Discovery is the legal process through which parties obtain information and evidence from one another before a case is decided.

FOIA cases are often decided using agency declarations and documentary evidence rather than extensive discovery. Courts may nevertheless allow discovery when they need to resolve a factual issue, including whether an entity is an agency subject to FOIA.

In this case, the district court permitted CREW to seek documents, written answers, and testimony from DOGE officials to investigate the organization’s structure and authority.

The administration argues that this discovery is too broad and intrudes into the work and confidentiality of presidential advisers. CREW says the remaining requests are necessary to determine whether DOGE exercised independent authority and are sufficiently limited to respect the Supreme Court’s earlier instructions.

That dispute over discovery—not a final determination that DOGE is or is not covered by FOIA—is the immediate focus of the Supreme Court appeal.

4. Limits on discovery involving the executive branch

The administration relies in part on Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004). That case emphasized the need for caution when courts consider broad discovery involving the executive branch and separation-of-powers concerns.

The administration also points to executive-privilege principles discussed in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). That decision recognized a presidential communications privilege while holding that the privilege is not absolute.

The government argues that broad discovery into DOGE’s internal communications and recommendations risks intruding on presidential advisers’ work. CREW argues that the remaining discovery is needed to establish the facts relevant to the FOIA agency question.

The Supreme Court’s decision could clarify how courts should balance those competing concerns when a requester seeks to establish whether a White House-connected entity is covered by federal records laws.

5. Why the government sought extraordinary relief

The Supreme Court case caption names the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia among the respondents because the administration sought extraordinary relief against the lower court’s discovery orders.

The administration pursued relief through mandamus, a remedy that allows a higher court to direct a lower court to act within legal limits in exceptional circumstances. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, provides authority for certain extraordinary writs.

Mandamus is a limited remedy. Decisions including Cheney v. U.S. District Court and Kerr v. U.S. District Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976), discuss the demanding standards for this type of relief.

The government’s current appeal asks whether the D.C. Circuit’s decision departed from the Supreme Court’s instructions and whether courts may order broad discovery against a presidential advisory body to determine whether FOIA applies.

6. FOIA exemptions still apply even if DOGE is covered

Even if a court ultimately determines that DOGE is subject to FOIA, that would not automatically make every DOGE record public.

FOIA contains nine exemptions under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Those potentially relevant to government records include:

Exemption 1: Classified information properly protected for national security reasons.
Exemption 3: Information that other federal statutes specifically protect from disclosure.
Exemption 4: Trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information, as discussed in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U.S. 427 (2019).
Exemption 5: Certain privileged interagency or intra-agency materials, including qualifying deliberative-process material. Relevant decisions include NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975), and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, 592 U.S. 261 (2021).
Exemptions 6 and 7(C): Certain personal information protected by privacy provisions, including issues discussed in Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989).

Courts have also addressed the limits of particular exemptions, including in Milner v. Department of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011). Agencies often use a Vaughn index, named after Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), to explain the basis for withholding records during litigation.

Any disclosure dispute would therefore still depend on the records involved and whether a valid exemption applies.

7. The Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act

Two other federal laws are relevant to the wider debate about government records.

Presidential Records Act (44 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2209): This law governs presidential records and sets rules for their preservation and public access. Access to presidential records is subject to the Act’s provisions and restrictions.

Federal Records Act (including 44 U.S.C. §§ 3101–3107): This law establishes requirements for federal agencies to create, maintain, and preserve records. Section 3106 addresses unlawful removal or destruction of records and related agency responsibilities.

CREW’s lawsuit raises questions about both disclosure and preservation. The district court’s March 2025 order required the preservation of records potentially responsive to CREW’s requests.

The FOIA agency question and the records-preservation issues are related, but they are not identical. The legal rules that govern a record depend on the applicable statute and the entity’s status.

8. The Federal Advisory Committee Act is a separate issue

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), now codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 1001–1014, governs certain federal advisory committees.

Decisions such as Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989), address the Act’s scope and application.

FACA is relevant to broader discussions about government advisory bodies, but it is not the central statute in CREW’s FOIA lawsuit. The immediate dispute concerns FOIA, records preservation, and the limits of discovery involving the executive branch.

Case History: How the DOGE FOIA Lawsuit Reached the Supreme Court

Date	Event
January 20, 2025	President Trump signs Executive Order 14158, establishing the U.S. DOGE Service and the temporary organization.
February 20, 2025	CREW files its lawsuit seeking DOGE records and records preservation.
March 10, 2025	Judge Christopher Cooper finds DOGE likely subject to FOIA at the preliminary stage, orders expedited processing, and requires preservation of relevant records.
March 27, 2025	CREW seeks expedited discovery to obtain information about DOGE’s structure and authority.
April 15, 2025	The district court grants CREW’s discovery request with modifications, including depositions and written discovery.
May 14, 2025	A D.C. Circuit panel denies the government’s initial request to block discovery.
May 20, 2025	The government seeks emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
June 6, 2025	The Supreme Court orders parts of the discovery directives to be narrowed and sends the dispute back to the D.C. Circuit.
July 14, 2025	The D.C. Circuit accepts CREW’s narrowed discovery requests and again denies the government’s request for mandamus.
December 18, 2025	The D.C. Circuit denies rehearing.
March 18, 2026	The administration files a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court.
October 13, 2026	The Supreme Court grants the petition.
By the end of June 2027	A decision is expected by the end of the Court’s Term, according to Reuters.

What Judge Christopher Cooper decided in March 2025

On March 10, 2025, Judge Cooper concluded that DOGE was likely subject to FOIA at the preliminary stage of the case. The court ordered expedited processing of CREW’s FOIA request and required the government to preserve potentially responsive records.

The judge considered the executive orders establishing DOGE, public statements about its role, and allegations about its authority across federal agencies.

The court did not make a final determination that DOGE was an agency under FOIA. Instead, it found sufficient grounds at that stage to require expedited processing and preservation while the lawsuit continued.

On April 15, the court granted CREW’s request for expedited discovery, with some modifications. The discovery included documents, written answers, and depositions involving DOGE officials.

What the Supreme Court did in June 2025

The Supreme Court intervened after the administration challenged the discovery order.

In its June 6, 2025 order, the Court concluded that parts of the discovery concerning DOGE’s recommendations to other agencies needed to be narrowed. It sent the matter back to the D.C. Circuit and stayed discovery while the lower court addressed the instructions.

The order reflected concerns about separation of powers and discovery into executive-branch activity. It was not a final decision on whether DOGE is covered by FOIA.

CREW subsequently narrowed its discovery requests. The D.C. Circuit accepted the narrowed requests on July 14, 2025, and denied the government’s request for mandamus. The administration sought rehearing, which the appeals court denied on December 18, 2025.

Why the administration appealed again in 2026

The administration filed its petition for a writ of certiorari on March 18, 2026. It argued that the D.C. Circuit did not adequately follow the Supreme Court’s instructions and that the remaining discovery still intruded on the confidentiality of presidential advisers.

The petition asks the Supreme Court to address two questions:

Whether the D.C. Circuit’s decision departed from the Supreme Court’s earlier instructions and the separation-of-powers principles discussed in Cheney v. U.S. District Court.
Whether courts may order broad discovery against an advisory body within the Executive Office of the President to determine whether FOIA’s disclosure requirements apply.

The Court granted the petition on October 13, 2026. The merits remain unresolved.

The Competing Arguments in the DOGE Records Case

The Trump administration’s position

The administration argues that DOGE is a presidential advisory body rather than an independent federal agency subject to FOIA.

Its principal arguments include:

DOGE’s role was to advise the President and federal officials, not to exercise independent authority that would make it a FOIA agency.
Broad discovery into internal communications and recommendations raises separation-of-powers concerns.
The lower courts did not adequately follow the Supreme Court’s June 2025 instructions to narrow discovery.
Allowing extensive discovery to determine whether FOIA applies could give CREW access to information that overlaps with the records it ultimately seeks.
The remaining discovery, including a deposition of acting DOGE administrator Amy Gleason, is too intrusive or burdensome.

The administration relies on Supreme Court precedent addressing discovery involving the executive branch and the distinction between presidential advisers and agencies covered by FOIA.

CREW’s position

CREW argues that DOGE exercised substantial independent authority across the federal government and should not be insulated from records laws merely because it operated within the Executive Office of the President.

Its arguments include:

DOGE influenced agency personnel decisions, contracts, grants, and access to government data.
The remaining discovery is necessary to determine DOGE’s actual structure and authority.
CREW narrowed its requests after the Supreme Court’s June 2025 order.
The lower courts correctly concluded that the remaining discovery could help resolve whether DOGE is covered by FOIA.
The public has a legitimate interest in understanding how DOGE influenced federal government operations.

CREW says the administration is trying to prevent fact-finding needed to determine whether federal records laws apply. The administration disputes that characterization.

The Supreme Court’s decision will address the legal limits on the discovery that can proceed in this case. It will not automatically establish that every DOGE record must be released.

What the Supreme Court Could Decide

The Court could resolve the dispute in several ways.

Rule for the administration on the discovery issue. The Court could conclude that the D.C. Circuit failed to follow its earlier instructions or permitted discovery that violates separation-of-powers principles.
Allow some discovery to continue. The Court could leave the narrowed discovery in place, allowing the lower court to continue examining DOGE’s structure and authority.
Issue a narrower ruling. The justices could clarify the standards governing discovery against presidential advisory bodies without finally deciding whether DOGE is covered by FOIA.
Provide broader guidance. The Court could clarify how lower courts should assess discovery requests when the status of a White House-connected entity under FOIA is disputed.

The outcome will depend on the questions presented, the parties’ arguments, and the Court’s analysis. It is important not to treat any of these possible outcomes as a prediction of the final ruling.

What this case will not decide

The case does not directly determine:

Whether DOGE’s workforce reductions, grant terminations, or contract cancellations were lawful.
Whether separate Appointments Clause, Privacy Act, or Administrative Procedure Act challenges will succeed.
Whether federal employees or contractors are entitled to compensation or reinstatement.
Whether every record held by DOGE must be released, even if FOIA applies.

Those issues may be addressed in separate proceedings under the laws that govern them.

What the DOGE Records Lawsuit Means for the Public

The dispute could affect how journalists, watchdog groups, researchers, and members of the public seek information about government operations.

For journalists and watchdog organizations: The decision could clarify how much discovery is available when a requester needs evidence to establish whether a White House-connected entity is subject to FOIA.

For future administrations: The ruling may influence how courts assess entities placed within or near the Executive Office of the President, particularly when those entities influence other federal agencies.

For federal employees and contractors: The case does not provide an individual remedy for people affected by DOGE-related decisions. Challenges to dismissals, contract cancellations, or other actions must be evaluated under the applicable legal procedures.

For the public: Even if DOGE is ultimately found to be covered by FOIA, disclosure would still be subject to applicable exemptions and other legal restrictions.

How to File Your Own FOIA Request

People seeking federal government records can submit FOIA requests to agencies that may hold the information.

Identify the relevant agency. FOIA.gov provides information about federal agencies and their FOIA contacts.
Describe the records clearly. Include dates, subjects, offices, names, or other details that can help the agency locate the requested records.
Check processing and fee requirements. You may request expedited processing if you meet the statutory criteria and should review any applicable fee rules.
Wait for the agency’s determination. FOIA generally requires a determination within 20 working days, subject to lawful extensions. That does not necessarily mean the agency must produce every responsive record within that period.
Appeal a denial when appropriate. FOIA provides an administrative appeal process. The agency’s denial notice should explain the applicable procedure and deadline.
Consider mediation or court review. The Office of Government Information Services offers FOIA dispute-resolution assistance. After satisfying applicable administrative requirements, a requester may be able to challenge an agency’s response in federal court.

For requests specifically involving DOGE, the administration may argue that certain records are outside FOIA because DOGE is not an agency. Requests to other federal agencies for their own records concerning DOGE are a separate matter and may be assessed under the rules applicable to those agencies.

What Happens Next in the Supreme Court DOGE Case?

Following the October 13, 2026 grant of review, the case will proceed through the Supreme Court’s merits process.

The next steps are expected to include:

Merits briefing: The administration and CREW will present their legal arguments to the justices.
Amicus briefs: Outside organizations and other interested parties may seek permission to file briefs under the Supreme Court’s rules.
Oral argument: The Court will schedule a hearing after the briefing process.
Written opinion: The justices will issue a decision after considering the case.

Reuters reported that the Court is expected to hear arguments and issue a ruling by the end of June 2027. The precise argument date and briefing deadlines should be checked against the official Supreme Court docket as they are posted.

The central question is how the courts should balance the need to establish whether DOGE is subject to federal records laws against the limits on discovery involving the President’s advisers and the executive branch.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Supreme Court DOGE Records Lawsuit

Why did the Supreme Court agree to hear the DOGE records case?

The administration challenged the lower courts’ handling of discovery in CREW’s lawsuit. It argues that the remaining discovery conflicts with the Supreme Court’s earlier instructions and raises separation-of-powers concerns. The Court granted the petition on October 13, 2026.

What is the Department of Government Efficiency?

DOGE is an initiative established by executive order in January 2025. The U.S. DOGE Service was placed within the Executive Office of the President. Despite the name, it is not a cabinet department established by Congress.

Does FOIA apply to DOGE?

That remains unresolved. Judge Christopher Cooper found in March 2025 that DOGE was likely covered by FOIA at the preliminary stage. The administration argues that DOGE is a presidential advisory body outside FOIA’s reach. The Supreme Court’s current review focuses on the discovery dispute and related separation-of-powers questions.

Is Elon Musk a party to the Supreme Court case?

Musk is listed among the petitioners in the Supreme Court petition in his official capacity. He is no longer in government service. CREW is the watchdog group seeking records, and the dispute concerns DOGE’s institutional status and the discovery permitted in the lawsuit.

Has the Supreme Court ruled on DOGE before?

Yes. In June 2025, the Court issued an emergency order requiring parts of the lower court’s discovery directives to be narrowed. That order was not a final decision on whether DOGE is subject to FOIA.

If CREW wins, will every DOGE record become public?

No. FOIA exemptions and other applicable legal restrictions would still apply. Whether a particular record must be disclosed would depend on the law and the circumstances.

Can I file a claim or receive money from this case?

No. This is a government records-access lawsuit, not a class action or settlement. There is no public claim form or compensation program associated with the case.

When will the Supreme Court decide the DOGE records case?

Reuters reported that a decision is expected by the end of June 2027. The exact schedule will depend on the Court’s briefing and argument calendar.

Can I file my own FOIA request about DOGE?

You can submit a request to a federal agency that may hold relevant records. The administration may argue that records held by DOGE itself are not subject to FOIA. Requests to other agencies for their own communications or records concerning DOGE are separate requests and may be assessed under the law applicable to those agencies.

Sources and References

U.S. Supreme Court: U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 25-1103 — Official Docket. The docket lists the petition for a writ of certiorari, the parties’ filings, the questions presented, and the October 13, 2026 order granting review.
U.S. DOGE Service petition for certiorari: Official Supreme Court filing. See the “Questions Presented” section for the issues the administration asked the Court to review.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: CREW’s DOGE records lawsuit and case history. This page includes the procedural history and links to court documents.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: March 10, 2025 opinion in CREW v. U.S. DOGE Service.
Associated Press: Supreme Court agrees to hear watchdog lawsuit seeking records on Elon Musk’s DOGE, October 13, 2026.
Reuters: Supreme Court to hear Trump’s fight with watchdog group over DOGE, October 13, 2026.
CREW: D.C. Circuit unanimously denies DOGE effort to block discovery in CREW FOIA lawsuit, December 18, 2025.
Federal statutes and executive orders: Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552; Federal Records Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 3101–3107; Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2209; All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651; and Executive Orders 14158, 14210, and 14222.

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, Legal Content Researcher

Last updated: October 13, 2026

About the Author

Israr Ahmad is a legal content researcher with 4+ years of experience covering class action settlements and consumer rights cases. He has researched and published coverage of 2,500+ settlements using verified court records, settlement administrator filings, and government sources. Learn more about Israr.