In a move that’s already sparking fierce debate, the Supreme Court handed down a surprise ruling that allows a Trump-backed agency to access sensitive Social Security data—even while lawsuits challenging the program are still playing out. The decision, made through the Court’s controversial shadow docket, has drawn blistering criticism from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Supreme Court Sides With Trump in Stunning Ruling
On June 6, the Court issued an emergency order lifting a lower court’s block on DOGE’s access to records from the Social Security Administration (SSA). The information in question includes deeply personal data like Social Security numbers, medical histories, and income details.
DOGE, launched under former President Donald Trump and now steered by Elon Musk, is meant to streamline federal operations and reduce fraud. But critics say the agency is overstepping, and this data grab is just the latest example.
“The sheer scope of information DOGE can now access is staggering,” said Alex Liu, a privacy law professor at Georgetown. “And this was done without a full hearing. That’s the scariest part.”
Why the Shadow Docket Worries Experts
This case didn’t go through the usual Supreme Court process—no briefs, no oral arguments, no transparency. Instead, the ruling came from the shadow docket: a way for the Court to make decisions quickly, often without full explanation.
That process is increasingly being used for major policy decisions, which some experts argue undermines public trust and legal stability.
Justice Jackson’s Blistering Dissent
Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Kagan, issued a strongly worded dissent warning that the Court’s move opens the door to privacy violations on a massive scale.
“This is a sad day for our democracy—and a scary one for the millions of Americans whose data is now in play,” Jackson wrote.
She also blasted the Court for acting before the legal process had played out in lower courts. “We have not even begun to assess the privacy risks. Yet here we are, unlocking the vaults,” she said.
Jackson’s warning resonated with civil liberties advocates. The ACLU and EPIC both issued statements condemning the ruling, calling it a dangerous precedent.
Data Access Without Guardrails?
Critics say DOGE has no meaningful oversight. Though billed as an efficiency agency, its mandate is vague, and watchdogs fear it could misuse the data now at its fingertips.
An internal watchdog report leaked last month found DOGE had no clear privacy protocols in place. And with Elon Musk’s involvement, concerns about tech-sector influence over public data are escalating.
Broader Implications
This ruling adds fuel to ongoing debates about:
- The expanding powers of the executive branch
- The use (and abuse) of the shadow docket
- The future of digital privacy in America
We’re watching a slow but seismic shift in how federal agencies use data—and how the courts approve that access. For now, DOGE has the green light, but multiple lawsuits are still pending.
As a privacy journalist, I’ve covered data misuse cases for over a decade. This one stands out—not because of the data itself, but because of how casually the Court waved it through.
