Share and Follow
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, left, and Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump attend a campaign event at the Butler Farm Show, Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024, in Butler, Pa. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
A federal judge in Maryland issued an order on Tuesday stating that Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) “likely violated the Constitution in multiple ways” by unilaterally dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in an effort to shutter the agency completely.
The ruling is yet another impediment to the Trump administration’s stated effort to gut the federal workforce and shrink the size of the government.
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang granted a preliminary injunction at the request of 26 current and former USAID contractors and employees, ordering Musk and DOGE to cease any additional cuts at the agency without the “express authorization” of an authorized agency official. The judge also directed USAID to restore access to the agency’s computer systems for employees, including more than 1,000 workers placed on leave since February, supposedly at Musk’s direction.
“Under these circumstances, the evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to [the Trump administration’s] sweeping claims that Musk has acted only as an advisor, Musk made the decisions to shutdown USAID’s headquarters and website,” Chuang wrote in the 68-page opinion.
The ruling stems from a Feb. 13, lawsuit filed on behalf of the employees by the State Democracy Defenders Fund and law firm Marziani, Stevens & Gonzalez PLLC. The suit alleged that Musk had been granted “an extraordinary amount of power” without being nominated or confirmed by the Senate, in violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause
“Indeed, the scope and reach of his executive authority appears unprecedented in U.S. history,” the complaint states. “His power includes, at least, the authority to cease the payment of congressionally approved funds, access sensitive and confidential data across government agencies, cut off systems access to federal employees and contractors at will, and take over and dismantle entire independent federal agencies.”
The government responded by claiming that Musk is nothing more than an adviser to President Donald Trump, whose actions were all approved by leaders at USAID, but the court cited numerous instances of Trump and Musk undercutting that notion.
“To deny plaintiffs’ Appointments Clause claim solely on the basis that, on paper, Musk has no formal legal authority relating to the decisions at issue, even if he is actually exercising significant authority on governmental matters, would open the door to an end-run around the Appointments Clause,” Chuang wrote. “If a president could escape Appointments Clause scrutiny by having advisers go beyond the traditional role of White House advisers who communicate the president’s priority to agency heads and instead exercise significant authority throughout the federal government so as to bypass duly appointed officers, the Appointments Clause would be reduced to nothing more than a technical formality.”
According to Chaung, the evidence made it likely that the plaintiffs would succeed in their claims that Musk’s authority within DOGE was an effort to skirt the Appointments Clause while the shuttering of USAID likely violated the separation of powers doctrine.
“There is no statute that authorizes the Executive Branch to shut down USAID,” Chuang wrote. “The public interest is specifically harmed by defendants’ actions, which have usurped the authority of the public’s elected representatives in Congress to make decisions on whether, when and how to eliminate a federal government agency, and of officers of the United States duly appointed under the Constitution to exercise the authority entrusted to them.”
Norm Eisen, the executive chair of the State Democracy Defenders Fund, praised the judge’s ruling Tuesday afternoon.
“Today’s decision is an important victory against Elon Musk and his DOGE attack on USAID, the United States’ government, and the Constitution,” Eisen said. “They are performing surgery with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel, harming not just the people USAID serves but also the majority of Americans who count on the stability of our government. This case is a milestone in pushing back on Musk and DOGE’s illegality.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
