The June 6, 2025, 6-3 United States Supreme Court decision has given the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) provisional access to confidential Social Security Administration (SSA) information, reawakening controversies surrounding data privacy, executive power, and the compatibility of anti-fraud efforts and civil liberties. This ruling overrules a preliminary court injunction and allows DOGE workers to check non-anonymized individual information, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and wage records, for the stated purposes of system updates and locating improper payments.
The Supreme Court’s split decision
Conservative majority Supreme Court, in its ruling, unsealed and unsigned, lifted the limitations imposed by District Judge Lipton Hollander, who had kept DOGE limited to anonymized data in March 2025. The court ruling grants DOGE’s 11-member SSA team immediate access to complete records until legal proceedings remain pending in lower courts. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, along with Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, cautioned the majority “jettisoned careful judicial deliberation” by granting emergency relief without showing indication of irreparable harm. She stated that the threat of invading the privacy of millions of individuals before there was sufficient judicial review of the legality of DOGE’s conduct.
DOGE’s mission and expansion
Authorized by President Trump’s January 2025 executive order, DOGE is designed to “maximize governmental efficiency” by simplifying federal technology and avoiding waste. Originally conceived as an advisory committee, DOGE has become semi-independent, embedded in the agencies with sweeping access to databases given to teams under loose oversight. The critics say that its form—established through executive fiat and exempt from normal transparency requirements—has a lack of accountability in conventional agencies.
The Social Security data collection
The SSA Numident database holds cradle-to-grave information about more than 200 million individuals from name to place of birth, parents, work history, and date of death. When augmented with disability claims, Medicare claims, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claims, it presents a complete picture of citizens’ lives. DOGE argues that this access is required in order to discover anomalies like a date of birth recorded as “1900” (meaning suspected fraud) or several Social Security numbers and access by DOGE was initially restricted by a judge as stated in this article, Bad news for Trump and Elon Musk – Judge orders new limits on DOGE’s access to data on millions of Americans at Social Security…. But Kathleen Romig, a former SSA analyst, points out that Numident’s recorded errors—e.g., missing death dates on 18.9 million persons born prior to 1920—may result in incorrect conclusions if read carelessly.
Legal challenges under the Privacy Act
At its center is the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits federal agencies from releasing personally identifiable information (PII) without the grant of authority, with certain exceptions. Judge Hollander initially established that DOGE had no reason to approve unrestricted access and proposed that targeting searches might provide fraud detection with decreased mass exposure of data. The Trump administration would later argue that DOGE staff members have the same rules of confidentiality as SSA staff members and postponement would disrupt important reforms.
Reactions and risks
Democratic lawmakers and civil rights groups blamed the ruling as a precedent for “unfettered surveillance”. House Democrats will allegedly submit legislation that will limit DOGE from accessing information, while monitoring groups point to its exclusion from being exempted from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. DOGE Acting Administrator Amy Gleason welcomed the ruling as crucial to safeguarding taxpayer dollars, though.
To residents, near-term effects will likely be limited, but long-term danger lurks. Experts sound the warning that combining SSA databases with other databases, immigration or law enforcement agencies, for example, would allow unparalleled state profiling. Additionally, SSA’s outdated IT system, based on code developed many decades past, risks DOGE’s interventions actually causing a snag in the payment of benefits.
The decision reveals tensions between technocratic modernization and rights of citizens. While DOGE’s algorithms might potentially save billions by limiting fraud, the lack of transparency into its approach and the rapid approval process by the court leaves questions that are now capable of only being decided by following litigation before the lower courts. The decision may finally redefine executive power in the digital era—and whether the benefits of efficiency improvements are worth trading off core privacy protections.
Read more: Good news on Social Security checks – Thousands of Americans will receive additional payments due to a calculation error in SSA checks
Read more: Do billionaires like Warren Buffet still collect Social Security when they retire? Here’s the final answer to the big question about SSA checks
