Federal Judge Rules OPM Violated the Privacy Act by Giving DOGE Agents Access to Employee Records, but Orders No Remedy Yet

As per a report by Federal News Network, Judge Denise Cote of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on October 20 in American Federation of Government Employees v. Office of Personnel Management (No. 1:25-cv-01237) that OPM violated federal privacy law when it gave DOGE agents access to sensitive personnel data. The court held in its 39-page opinion that OPM's grants of access violated the Privacy Act's disclosure and safeguards provisions, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) and (e)(10), and were therefore "not in accordance with law" under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on their APA claims and granted the government's motion only on a separate ultra vires claim, which it dismissed because the APA already gave the plaintiffs review and relief.

According to the opinion, OPM gave access to at least fourteen systems, most containing personally identifiable information, to twenty DOGE-related individuals between January 20 and March 6, 2025, almost all with administrative access, and "no credible need for this access had been demonstrated." The opinion describes the records as those of tens of millions of past, current and aspiring federal employees. The court said the government "barely" defended the legality of the access, relying instead on later events to argue that the case is moot, and it held that those events fell short of mooting it. The DOGE temporary organisation ended on July 4, 2026, and one DOGE agent remains at OPM without current access to the systems, the opinion says.

The court did not order a remedy. It held that access "has been held unlawful," found that vacating the access was unnecessary because the permissions have been rescinded, and said it would ask the parties what relief, if any, is appropriate; the plaintiffs continue to seek deletion of any copies of OPM data DOGE agents still hold. The government preserved its standing, reviewability and mootness arguments for appeal, according to the opinion, and no appeal had been reported.