Tech billionaire Elon Musk got a temporary win in court this week in his efforts to continue infiltrating and cutting several key government agencies through his Department of Government Efficiency task force — but the victory may be short-lived, MSNBC legal analyst Adam Klasfeld wrote Tuesday evening.
A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general sued over DOGE's authority, claiming that Musk and his software engineers, as special government employees, do not have the power to make these decisions under the Constitution's Appointments Clause as they were not Senate-confirmed officers. They petitioned U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — the same judge who heard special counsel Jack Smith's federal election conspiracy case against President Donald Trump — for a temporary restraining order blocking them from accessing data for seven federal agencies.
ALSO READ: 'Gotta be kidding': Jim Jordan scrambles as he's confronted over Musk 'double standard'
On Tuesday, Chutkan found the plaintiffs were ineligible for an emergency restraining order, finding that appointment powers cases like this generally aren't emergencies.
"The court is aware that DOGE's unpredictable actions have resulted in considerable uncertainty and confusion for plaintiffs and many of their agencies and residents," she wrote in her opinion. "But the 'possibility' that defendants may take actions that irreparably harm plaintiffs 'is not enough.'"
But not so fast, Klasfeld wrote. Chutkan had a stark warning for Musk and the Justice Department that, even if they're not subject to a restraining order now, they could end up losing when the case is fully litigated.
"As expected, Judge Chutkan won't issue a sweeping TRO against Elon Musk and DOGE, but she fires this shot across the bow to them both. 'Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight,'" Klasfeld noted.
In fact, he said, "Judge Chutkan noted in the footnote that neither she nor the plaintiffs heard of a TRO being granted in an Appointments Clause challenge like this, but she suggested they seem to have a 'strong merits argument' going ahead."