The lawsuit against Elon Musk over the Department of Government Efficiency is moving forward after a federal judge ruled in March 2026 that plaintiffs raised valid claims that Musk exercised the powers of a Senate-confirmed officer without constitutional authorization. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the core claims, keeping alive the possibility that a court could eventually unwind actions DOGE took during Musk’s roughly 130-day tenure, including mass firings of federal workers and terminations of grants and contracts.1Ars Technica. All of DOGE’s Work Could Be Undone as Lawsuit Against Musk Proceeds
What the March 2026 Ruling Decided
On March 23, 2026, Judge Chutkan issued a memorandum opinion that let two central claims proceed. She allowed the “ultra vires” claim, finding plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence that DOGE exercised “immense power without any grant of statutory authority,” which she called an “extreme legal error.” She also denied dismissal of the Appointments Clause claim, rejecting the government’s argument that Musk was exempt from constitutional appointment requirements because his office had not been formally established by law. If a president unilaterally creates a principal office and fills it without Senate confirmation, she wrote, that arrangement warrants more scrutiny, not less.1Ars Technica. All of DOGE’s Work Could Be Undone as Lawsuit Against Musk Proceeds
Chutkan acknowledged Musk had left the administration and that DOGE had been officially disbanded, but she wrote that “the principles of his project are still very much alive and well.”2Politico. Court Advances Lawsuit Against DOGE She did dismiss the nonprofit plaintiffs’ separation-of-powers and Administrative Procedure Act claims, finding they had failed to identify particular agency actions with enough specificity. The broader allegations that Musk and other DOGE leaders made decisions about “the termination of federal grants, contracts and workers” survived.3The Hill. Judge Allows Musk Lawsuit to Proceed Over Trump Adviser Role
The Constitutional Question
The case turns on whether Musk functioned as a “principal officer” of the United States, a role the Constitution requires be filled through presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. The White House maintained throughout that Musk was a “special government employee” serving in an advisory capacity, and government lawyers argued he was “not in charge of DOGE — legally speaking.”4NPR. Musk Lawsuit DOGE Trump Spending Bill
Plaintiffs argued Musk’s conduct told a different story. They pointed to his role in directing mass firings, terminating contracts, accessing sensitive government databases, and making decisions about the “very existence of federal agencies” as evidence he wielded authority far exceeding an adviser’s. Under a formalist reading of the Constitution, Musk’s advisory title might shield him from Appointments Clause scrutiny; under a functionalist analysis, his practical exercise of power over federal spending and personnel placed him in officer territory.5National Constitution Center. Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Appointments Clause
Who Sued and When
The case began on February 13, 2025, when fourteen state attorneys general, led by New Mexico, filed New Mexico v. Musk (Case No. 1:25-cv-00429) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, Connecticut, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Washington, and Vermont argued that President Trump violated the Appointments Clause by granting Musk sweeping executive authority without Senate confirmation, causing “widespread disruption” to federal funding, state tax and banking data, and agencies Congress had authorized.6Connecticut Attorney General. Attorney General Tong Sues to Stop Elon Musk Unconstitutional Power Grab7ABC News. New Lawsuit Against DOGE: 14 States Challenge Musk’s Sweeping Authority
A parallel suit brought by the Japanese American Citizens League, OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists through the Campaign Legal Center challenged the same conduct.8Campaign Legal Center. Campaign Legal Center Sues Elon Musk and DOGE for Exercising Unchecked Power and Harming Judge Chutkan consolidated the two on March 20, 2025.9Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. New Mexico v. Musk
What DOGE Did That the Case Targets
DOGE directed agencies to identify and fire probationary employees en masse, bypassing the reduction-in-force procedures federal law requires.10Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. What You Need to Know About DOGE and the Limits of Its Authority Agencies affected included the Department of Veterans Affairs, which planned to cut 80,000 positions; the Social Security Administration, at roughly 12% of its workforce; the IRS, at nearly 20%; and the Department of Education, which fired its entire legal compliance staff.11House Budget Committee Democrats. DOGE’s Mass Firings Result in Gutted Services and Higher Costs
DOGE also pursued contract and grant terminations on a large scale. At USAID alone, at least 230 grants and contracts were terminated or frozen. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau saw over $100 million in contract cancellations, and the General Services Administration was directed to begin terminating federal building leases.12Dentons. Termination Cost Recovery DOGE personnel gained access to sensitive federal databases, including Treasury payment systems and Social Security records covering millions of Americans.10Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. What You Need to Know About DOGE and the Limits of Its Authority
Why Musk’s Departure Didn’t End the Case
Musk left DOGE on May 28, 2025, describing the exit as the end of his “scheduled time” as a special government employee.13NPR. Musk Leaves DOGE: What Comes Next The government argued the litigation had become moot. Days before his departure, Judge Chutkan had already denied the motion to dismiss the consolidated case, ruling that the states had “plausibly allege[d] that Musk makes decisions about federal expenditures, contracts, government property, and the very existence of federal agencies.” She dismissed President Trump as a defendant, citing the principle that courts may not enjoin the president in the performance of official duties.4NPR. Musk Lawsuit DOGE Trump Spending Bill
Discovery proceeded through the summer. After the D.C. Circuit denied the government’s petition to block discovery in July 2025, Chutkan’s earlier order authorizing written discovery against Musk and DOGE took full effect, covering information about agencies, employees, contracts, grants, and federal funding involving the plaintiff states.9Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. New Mexico v. Musk The March 2026 ruling then rejected the argument that Musk’s departure and DOGE’s disbanding had resolved the underlying constitutional problem.
Related Cases Still in Motion
The consolidated case is not the only active litigation. In the District of Maryland, Does 1-26 v. Musk, brought by former USAID employees, survived a motion to dismiss in August 2025 when Judge Theodore D. Chuang rejected what he called the defendants’ “atextual and ahistorical conception” of the Appointments Clause. The defendants’ attempt to get that ruling certified for immediate appeal was denied in January 2026, and discovery is proceeding.14Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Does 1-26 v. Musk
At least a dozen Privacy Act cases remain pending, challenging DOGE’s access to data across Treasury, OPM, the SSA, and the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services.15Brookings Institution. Privacy Under Siege: DOGE’s One Big Beautiful Database16Federal News Network. Judge Finds OPM Broke Law in Granting Data Access to DOGE17Electronic Frontier Foundation. American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management A bench trial in one of the federal employee cases is set for September 2026, and appellate arguments in the USAID dispute are scheduled for April 2026.18Workers’ Legal Defense. Litigation Tracker
What a Plaintiff Win Could Do
If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail, the court could issue an injunction preventing further government cuts carried out under DOGE’s authority and could vacate policies or budget cuts Musk initiated, effectively undoing actions that have already taken effect.1Ars Technica. All of DOGE’s Work Could Be Undone as Lawsuit Against Musk Proceeds The plaintiffs argue their claims reach beyond Musk personally to his successors and to the entity’s ongoing framework. As of November 2025, DOGE still had staff operating as a “temporary organization,” with a charter scheduled to conclude on July 4, 2026, and its principles being institutionalized within the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget.19Federal News Network. DOGE and Its Long-Term Counterpart Remain With a Full Slate of Modernization Projects Underway Whether any of those actions get rolled back now depends on how the merits fight unfolds under Judge Chutkan’s ruling.