AFGE has won a major ruling in its lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) over the illegal disclosure of federal employees’ personal records to DOGE.
On October 20, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to AFGE and its fellow plaintiffs, including several AFGE members, on their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). She ruled that OPM acted unlawfully by violating the Privacy Act when it gave DOGE agents sweeping access to systems holding sensitive information on tens of millions of current, former, and prospective federal employees.
The ruling is a decision on the merits, not a preliminary order. The court found that OPM broke two separate provisions of the Privacy Act: one that limits the sharing of personal records, and one that requires agencies to keep those records secure and confidential. Because OPM’s grants of access to DOGE violated the Privacy Act, the court held they were “not in accordance with law” under the APA, the statute that lets courts strike down unlawful actions by federal agencies. Judge Cote held that OPM’s decision to give DOGE agents broad access to these records “without a demonstrated need was unlawful.”
What the court found
The records at stake are some of the most sensitive the government holds, including Social Security numbers, home addresses, and health and financial information for federal workers, retirees, job applicants, and their families. Starting in January 2025, OPM opened those systems to about 20 DOGE agents on an expedited basis. The administration claimed it was all part of a “modernization” effort. The judge rejected that claim, writing that the record “provides no support for a finding that it was the pursuit of a modernization agenda” that drove OPM’s decision. A former OPM chief information officer testified that he worked on modernization projects at two federal agencies without ever needing access to employees’ personal information, and the government never explained why DOGE’s work at OPM had to be different.
The court went further, placing responsibility on the people who made the decisions. In her opinion, Judge Cote wrote that the misconduct “resulted from the failure of particular individuals to abide by the Privacy Act and to honor the safeguards already in place at OPM.”
The administration tried to get the case thrown out by arguing it no longer mattered. Government lawyers pointed out that DOGE had shut down, that all but one DOGE agent has left OPM, and that OPM had adopted new procedures. The court did not buy it. Judge Cote found that ending DOGE “narrows, but does not eliminate” the chance this happens again. She noted that the same executive order that created DOGE keeps the U.S. DOGE Service in place, along with its directive that agencies give it “full and prompt access” to their records, and that OPM’s fixes seemed timed to court deadlines rather than reflecting any real change in behavior.
“Federal workers hand their government their most sensitive personal information for the privilege to serve their fellow citizens, with the understanding the government will protect that information,” said AFGE National President Everett Kelley. “This administration broke that trust, and now a federal court has said so in plain terms. AFGE members didn’t sit back and hope someone else would fix this. We knew what OPM and DOGE were doing was against the law. We took them to court, and we won. And we will keep pushing until every record DOGE accessed is accounted for and every safeguard required by law restored.”
AFGE filed this case in February 2025, just weeks after DOGE gained access to OPM’s systems. Our union is joined by the Association of Administrative Law Judges (IFPTE Judicial Council 1) and individual current and former federal employees, including AFGE members. The plaintiffs are represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Lex Lumina LLP, Democracy Defenders Fund, and The Chandra Law Firm.
The October 20 ruling builds on earlier wins in the same case. In June 2025, Judge Cote issued a preliminary injunction, calling OPM’s actions a “gross departure” from its legal obligations and its own cybersecurity practices. In April of this year, she ordered that the names of the DOGE agents involved be made public, rejecting the government’s bid to keep them confidential.
What comes next
The court has not yet decided what relief, if any, to order. Because OPM has already revoked the DOGE agents’ access, the judge said there was no access left to set aside, and she will weigh the changes OPM has made since the lawsuit was filed in deciding whether a permanent court order is still needed. She directed both sides to propose a schedule for next steps by November 6. AFGE and the other plaintiffs asked the court to order the deletion of any data DOGE pulled from OPM’s systems and to require OPM to account for every disclosure made to DOGE agents.
Read the court’s decision here. For updates on this and AFGE’s other legal fights to protect your rights at work, visit AFGE.org/lawsuitupdate.
Protecting your personal information is one more reason your union matters. If a coworker is not yet a member, now is a good time to ask them to join. They can sign up at join.afge.org.
On Saturday Oct. 24, AFGE members across the country engaged in important conversations about what’s at stake this Election Day.
Read More
AFGE has won a major ruling in its lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) over the illegal disclosure of federal employees’ personal records to DOGE.
Read More
AFGE Local 228, which represents more than 700 SBA employees across the country, is calling on Congress to step in to halt unnecessary relocations.
Read More
