Supreme Court to hear DOGE’s bid to avoid turning over internal documents

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to review a requirement that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) turn over internal communications in ongoing litigation, which the Trump administration calls an “intrusive” demand that violates the separation of powers.

The high court previously issued a ruling siding with the administration when it sought emergency relief. Now, the dispute has returned to the justices on their regular docket.

Oral arguments are likely to be held early next year, with a decision expected by summer.

DOGE spearheaded job and funding cuts throughout the federal government in the early months of the second Trump term, sparking a wave of litigation from federal employees and grant recipients. Other groups filed lawsuits over DOGE personnel’s access to sensitive government systems. DOGE formally shut down operations on July 4, but many of its employees went to different agencies in technology or design roles.

At the center of the lawsuit is whether DOGE qualifies as an “agency” under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) statute. Trump formally created the group by issuing an executive action that renamed the existing U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service. In court, the Justice Department says it doesn’t qualify.

The case at hand began after Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-leaning watchdog, sued DOGE to force it to answer FOIA requests.

To shed light on whether FOIA applies to DOGE, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper demanded the group disclose certain intra-executive branch communications about its work. Cooper is an appointee of former President Obama who serves on the federal trial bench in the nation’s capital.

The Supreme Court halted the order in June 2025, over the dissents of the liberal justices, saying the demand needed to at least be narrowed. In the latest round, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court filings that they only did so “slightly.”

“The lower courts’ approach also defeats FOIA’s objective of protecting the separation of powers,” Sauer wrote. “Subjecting advisory bodies to intrusive discovery triggers the very concerns that Congress sought to avoid.”

But CREW said the lower courts followed the justices’ instructions “to the letter” and dismissed any notion that they had completely foreclosed discovery in the case.

“That is not what this Court said,” the group’s attorneys wrote in court filings.