A federal judge in Washington, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, expressed concerns about the constitutionality of Elon Musk’s organization, the U.S. DOGE Service, during a court hearing. She suggested it may violate the Constitution’s appointments clause, as Musk has not been officially nominated or confirmed. These remarks stem from a civil case initiated by labor unions and a retirees’ group seeking to block Musk’s access to sensitive Treasury records. Judge Kollar-Kotelly also questioned the organization’s structure and leadership, emphasizing a lack of clarity regarding who is in charge and what authority they possess, potentially indicating future legal problems for the group.
On Monday, a federal judge in Washington expressed concerns regarding the Trump administration’s establishment and operation of Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency, suggesting it may be unconstitutional.
The comments from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly were not part of a definitive ruling but hinted at potential issues for Musk’s organization, also referred to as the U.S. DOGE Service.
“Given the limited information at my disposal, I have substantial concerns about the constitutionality of U.S.D.S.’s framework and activities,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly remarked during a Federal District Court hearing in Washington. She specifically raised the possibility that it contravenes the appointments clause of the Constitution, which mandates that federal agency leaders receive nomination from the president and confirmation from the Senate. Musk has neither been nominated nor confirmed.
Her comments concerning Musk’s operation arose during a civil case initiated by two labor unions alongside a group advocating for millions of American retirees. They are pursuing an injunction to prevent Musk’s team from accessing sensitive records held by the Treasury Department.
Recently, a federal judge in Manhattan, addressing a similar legal matter, prohibited Musk’s cost-cutting group from regaining access to the Treasury Department’s payment and data systems pending the outcome of a separate lawsuit arguing that their access is unlawful.
These lawsuits form part of a broader challenge to Musk’s extensive efforts to scrutinize government expenditures and reduce the federal workforce, which have resulted in conflicting directives between Musk and various federal agency heads, along with termination notices that were swiftly revoked.
Some lawsuits have explicitly questioned the constitutionality of Musk’s operations. However, Judge Kollar-Kotelly was the first federal judge involved in such a case to suggest how she might approach that pivotal issue.
The judge also conveyed serious doubts regarding the management of the organization. Her concerns stemmed from ambiguous information about who oversees the U.S. DOGE Service and Mr. Musk’s involvement in its operations.
During the hearing, Judge Kollar-Kotelly repeatedly inquired of government attorney Bradley Humphreys about the identity of the service’s administrator, to which he could not provide a clear response.
The judge further sought clarification from Mr. Humphreys regarding Mr. Musk’s official position. Humphreys stated that Musk was not the administrator of the DOGE Service, nor even an employee of the organization, mirroring a statement from a White House official in a separate case questioning the group’s authority.
When pressed on what Mr. Musk’s actual role entailed, Mr. Humphreys replied, “I don’t possess any information aside from him being a close advisor to the president.”
This exchange appeared to frustrate Judge Kollar-Kotelly, who expressed her doubts regarding the legitimacy of the organization’s structure and authority.
“It seems to me that if individuals are executing functions without the proper authorization, that indeed raises a concern,” she remarked. “I would expect that by this point we would clearly identify who the administrator, or acting administrator, is and what authority they hold?”