By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Fourteen states have filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and President Trump, arguing that Musk’s position within DOGE violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The suit mirrors the successful challenge to Jack Smith’s authority in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, utilizing Justice Thomas’s concurrence in that case to support their claim that Musk is an unappointed principal officer. The plaintiffs contend that the executive branch lacks the power to unilaterally create DOGE and that Musk’s actions are therefore unconstitutional. They seek a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and declaratory relief to halt DOGE’s operations and nullify Musk’s actions.
Read the original article here
The core of this lawsuit targeting Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), formerly the United States Digital Service, hinges on a fascinating legal twist: the use of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s own words against the executive branch’s power. The lawsuit, filed by fourteen states, directly challenges the constitutionality of DOGE’s existence and Musk’s authority within it, mirroring the argument that previously impacted Jack Smith’s special counsel investigation into the Mar-a-Lago documents.
This legal strategy cleverly employs the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, arguing that the executive branch lacks the power to unilaterally create or dismantle federal agencies. The plaintiffs contend that Congress, not the president, holds the authority to establish such entities. This directly challenges the legitimacy of DOGE’s creation and Musk’s position within it, given that he wasn’t confirmed by the Senate.
The lawsuit explicitly references Justice Thomas’s concurrence in the *Trump v. United States* case. In that concurrence, Thomas argued that the President lacks the unilateral power to create offices, emphasizing that this power rests with Congress. This legal precedent, established by a conservative justice, now serves as the foundation for a challenge to a Republican administration’s actions. The irony is not lost.
The lawsuit paints a picture of Musk operating as an essentially unaccountable “principal officer” within the Trump administration. It emphasizes his significant power and influence, arguing that his actions constitute a violation of the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. The lawsuit highlights the lack of congressional authorization and oversight regarding DOGE’s creation and Musk’s role, further strengthening its constitutional challenge.
Beyond the constitutional argument, the lawsuit also attacks DOGE’s actions on statutory grounds. It alleges that DOGE is operating beyond any authority granted by Congress, engaging in activities not explicitly permitted by existing laws. This dual-pronged approach strengthens the case against both the agency and Musk’s role.
The plaintiffs are seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and declaratory relief. They demand that Musk disclose the government data DOGE has accessed, destroy any copies he possesses, and cease any further use of that data. A list of ten prohibited actions underscores the breadth of the requested relief, aiming to comprehensively curtail DOGE’s operations.
The lawsuit’s bombastic language is clearly intended to draw attention to the alleged abuses of power. The claim that Musk’s actions are “ultra vires” and therefore void underscores the gravity of the accusations and the plaintiffs’ desire to effectively nullify DOGE’s past and future actions. The case’s outcome will significantly impact the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and set a crucial precedent.
The case’s outcome remains uncertain, pending the assignment of a judge. The strategic use of Justice Thomas’s own words, however, presents a unique and potent challenge to the Trump administration’s actions. The fact that a conservative legal argument is being wielded against a Republican president and a high-profile figure like Elon Musk makes this case unusually compelling. The legal arguments, regardless of personal political leanings, present a strong challenge to the established norms of executive power. The irony inherent in employing a conservative judicial opinion to challenge a conservative administration is also particularly notable. This legal battle could have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power within the US government.