Inside Trump v. CREW: Presidential Power, FOIA, and the DOGE Showdown at the Supreme Court
The separation of powers is once again under the Supreme Court’s microscope. In a high-stakes legal clash with implications for transparency, executive privilege, and government oversight, the Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to halt an order compelling the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to provide records in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
This latest emergency request marks the second time this month the Trump administration has sought Supreme Court intervention involving DOGE. As watchdog groups intensify scrutiny over what they allege is unchecked executive influence, the administration is fighting to shield its internal communications and advisory records from public view—arguing that forcing discovery would violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers and undermine confidential presidential deliberation.
📁 Background: What Is DOGE and Why It Matters
DOGE was created by President Donald Trump on January 20 as a presidential advisory body, tasked with rooting out “fraud, waste, and abuse” and streamlining government operations. Although not a cabinet-level agency, DOGE wields considerable influence across federal departments in shaping Trump’s vision of a leaner bureaucracy.
DOGE’s formation came under immediate scrutiny by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonprofit watchdog group. On January 24, CREW filed a FOIA request seeking:
- Communications between DOGE Administrator Amy Gleason and her staff
- Financial disclosures of DOGE personnel
- Records on DOGE-recommended terminations, contract cancellations, and staff changes
When the request yielded no timely response, CREW filed suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., arguing that DOGE functions as a de facto federal agency and is therefore subject to FOIA’s transparency requirements.
🏛️ The Lower Court: FOIA Applies—For Now
In February, U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper largely sided with CREW. He ruled that limited discovery could proceed to determine whether DOGE meets the legal definition of an “agency” under FOIA.
This included authorizing the deposition of Administrator Gleason and compelling DOGE to produce internal lists of staff, canceled programs, and terminated positions. The order aimed to uncover whether DOGE crosses the line from a purely advisory group into a functional executive agency, which would trigger FOIA obligations.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block Judge Cooper’s order, calling the discovery requests “modest” and emphasizing their urgency—particularly as the documents could influence pending legislation on federal appropriations.
⚠️ The Administration’s Supreme Court Argument
In response, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. His central claim: executive branch confidentiality is at stake.
According to Sauer, forcing DOGE to comply with pretrial discovery “offends the separation of powers” by exposing presidential advisors to judicial oversight, potentially chilling their ability to offer candid and confidential policy advice.
Moreover, he argued, compelling discovery now would give CREW most of the materials it hopes to win—even before courts resolve whether FOIA even applies. That, he said, amounts to a premature victory for the plaintiffs and a constitutional overreach by the judiciary.
Sauer painted the issue as one of executive integrity, warning that intrusive discovery would “significantly distract” from DOGE’s mission of government reform and efficiency.
⏳ What Happens Next?
Chief Justice John Roberts has ordered CREW to respond to the emergency application by May 23. The Supreme Court could either grant the Trump administration’s request to pause discovery—or allow the lower court’s order to proceed.
Meanwhile, the justices are already considering a second DOGE-related emergency appeal, this one involving an order out of Baltimore that restricts DOGE personnel from accessing Social Security records due to privacy concerns.
The two cases underscore a mounting legal campaign over how far executive privilege extends when modern White House advisory bodies like DOGE operate in the shadows but wield enormous practical power.
⚖️ Why This Case Matters for Law Students and Legal Professionals
This battle is more than just a bureaucratic spat—it’s a textbook case for constitutional law, FOIA interpretation, and administrative power. At its heart lies a tension between:
- The public’s right to know how unelected actors shape federal policy
- The executive’s need for confidentiality in sensitive decision-making
- The role of the courts in policing the blurry boundaries between transparency and privilege
Legal practitioners, especially those in administrative law, should keep close watch. A ruling from the Supreme Court could redefine the reach of FOIA and signal how far courts are willing to go to protect (or pierce) the veil of executive advisory bodies.
#SCOTUS #FOIA #ExecutivePrivilege #DOGEWatchdog #LegalTransparency #SeparationOfPowers #AdministrativeLaw #PresidentialPower #LawBlog #LawStudents #LegalNews #TrumpLitigation #ConstitutionalLaw
Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/trump-asks-high-court-to-pause-another-suit-against-doge/
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment