Fourth Circuit Vacates Preliminary Injunction Blocking DOGE Access to Social Security Data

LitNews.ai Staff · April 10, 2026 · Fourth Circuit

Panel Chief Judge Diaz, Circuit Judge Wilkinson, Circuit Judge Niemeyer, Circuit Judge King, Circuit Judge Gregory, Circuit Judge Agee, Circuit Judge Wynn, Circuit Judge Thacker, Circuit Judge Harris, Circuit Judge Richardson, Circuit Judge Quattlebaum, Circuit Judge Rushing, Circuit Judge Heytens, Circuit Judge Benjamin, Circuit Judge Berner

Opinion by Circuit Judge Heytens

Concurrence Circuit Judge Wilkinson, Circuit Judge Richardson, Circuit Judge Quattlebaum

Dissent Circuit Judge King (partial dissent), Circuit Judge Wynn

Judge Toby Heytens, writing for a fractured en banc Fourth Circuit on Thursday, held that unions failed to show irreparable harm in their challenge to the U.S. DOGE Service's access to sensitive personal information from Social Security Administration databases, vacating a district court preliminary injunction despite finding plaintiffs likely had standing to sue.

Three major unions representing seven million Americans sued to prevent the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing their members' personally identifiable information held by the Social Security Administration, including Social Security numbers, citizenship status, birth dates, bank account numbers, tax information, and medical history. The case arose after President Trump's January 20, 2025 executive order creating the U.S. DOGE Service, which sought 'unprecedented' access to SSA systems containing non-anonymized data on nearly 72 million Americans. A standoff ensued between DOGE personnel and career SSA officials, leading to resignations and the installation of a new acting administrator who granted the sweeping access DOGE sought.

Judge Heytens concluded that while plaintiffs suffered a concrete injury analogous to the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm under Winter's preliminary injunction test. 'Much like rifling through someone's wallet, bank account, or personal documents, granting unauthorized and unwarranted access to a person's sensitive personal information is an intentional intrusion into 'private affairs or concerns,'' Heytens wrote. However, he found that potential damages under the Privacy Act and the possibility of a reparative permanent injunction undermined any claim of irreparable harm.

The court delivered its most pointed criticism regarding the procedural posture, noting that the Supreme Court had already stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal. 'Because of the particular procedural posture of this case, the district court's preliminary injunction cannot currently protect anyone from anything and no decision we issue today has the power to change that fact,' Heytens observed. The Supreme Court's stay order directed that the preliminary injunction would remain stayed until completion of all appellate review, including by the Supreme Court itself.

The case reached the Fourth Circuit after U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander in Maryland granted the preliminary injunction following 'hours of hearings and hundreds of pages of analysis.' The district court had initially found that handing over non-anonymized and highly sensitive information to DOGE was itself unlawful, regardless of whether DOGE had misused the information or disclosed it to malicious actors. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Alliance for Retired Americans, and American Federation of Teachers argued violations of the Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

Judge Heytens rejected the government's argument that plaintiffs could not suffer concrete harm when DOGE employees accessed the same data available to other SSA employees. 'That argument suffers from a familiar flaw: confusing a possible 'weakness on the merits with [an] absence of Article III standing,'' he wrote. Using a hypothetical involving a psychiatrist inappropriately sharing a patient's journal with a janitor, Heytens explained: 'it matters a great deal—both in life and in law—who in the office reads the patient's journal. And under plaintiffs' merits theory (which, again, we must assume is valid at this stage of the analysis), DOGE is the nosy janitor.'

The en banc court also used the case to abrogate portions of its recent decision in American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent, which had suggested district courts should assign numerical probabilities to a plaintiff's chances of success on each issue and multiply those probabilities together. 'Today, we disavow any suggestion that district courts should assign numerical probabilities to a plaintiff's chances of success on each issue and then multiply those probabilities together to determine whether the plaintiff's 'overall odds' of success are high enough to warrant a preliminary injunction,' Heytens wrote. 'Better, we think, to stick with the traditional approach' under Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

The decision featured multiple concurring opinions reflecting deep disagreement over the Supreme Court's emergency docket practices. Judge Wilkinson, joined by three other judges, wrote that the Supreme Court's stay order should control the outcome, arguing 'identical circumstances should produce identical judicial dispositions.' Judge Richardson's concurrence, joined by six judges, emphasized that interim orders from the Supreme Court have precedential force after Trump v. Boyle, stating the case was 'squarely controlled' by the Court's stay. However, Judge King's partial dissent, joined by five judges, criticized the majority for ignoring recent allegations about DOGE's data handling practices.

The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings, noting that recent government admissions about providing inaccurate information and potential unauthorized data sharing were not part of the record when the preliminary injunction was entered. 'On remand, however, the parties will be able to introduce further evidence on' these developments, Heytens noted, and the district court 'will be free to consider any future requests for appropriate relief or corrective action.'

Counsel

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is represented by Alethea Anne Swift of Democracy Forward Foundation, Brian A. Sutherland and Anna-Rose Mathieson of Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, and Mark B. Samburg, Emma R. Leibowitz, Simon C. Brewer, and Robin F. Thurston of Democracy Forward Foundation.

The Social Security Administration and other defendants are represented by Jack E. Starcher, Yaakov M. Roth, Eric D. McArthur, Gerard Sinzdak, Simon Jerome, and Jacob Christensen of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case

The case is American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Social Security Administration, case number 25-1411, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Court

Fourth Circuit

Case Name

American Federation of State, County and Municipal v. SSA

Docket

25-1411