A US federal judge enjoined the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) shutdown of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) Tuesday, ordering a halt to dismantling efforts, a reinstatement of employee electronic systems, and restored access to the agency’s headquarters.
The District Court of Maryland ruled in an accompanying memorandum opinion that DOGE and director Elon Musk “likely violated the Constitution in multiple ways, and that these actions not only harmed [USAID employees], but also the public interest, because they deprived the public’s elected representatives in Congress of their constitutional authority.”
The Appointments Clause creates two categories of government officers: principal officers and inferior officers. The president appoints principal officers with the consent of the Senate. Principal officers include major government positions like department heads, ambassadors, and Supreme Court Justices. Conversely, Congress makes appointment rules for inferior officers and can authorize the president, the courts, or department heads to assign such roles.
In the suit, plaintiffs argued that Musk operated as a de facto government officer and that, as either a principal officer or inferior officer, his role required either Senate consent or congressional guidance. Musk has received neither of these since assuming his role.
Musk did not challenge whether he received proper Senate or congressional authorization, but argued that he had not acted as a government officer, claiming his role was “purely advisory” and USAID officials first approved all his discretionary acts.
While taking evidence of Musk’s claim, the court ultimately held that “despite [occupying] allegedly advisory roles, [Musk and DOGE] have taken… unilateral actions without any apparent authorization from agency officials.”
On the separation of powers claim, the court balanced considerations of congressional power with presidential power. Specifically, the court observed that Congress established USAID as an independent agency — however, in certain cases the president can exercise executive power not explicitly authorized by congressional statutes. The court ultimately held that “it is likely that Plaintiffs will succeed in their Separation of Power claim” and that certain parts of the analysis will be addressed in “later stages of the case.”
Multiple USAID employees affected by DOGE’s dismantling efforts brought the suit in February, arguing that DOGE and Musk violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and separation of powers principles. “Defendant Musk and his DOGE team are exercising an unprecedented level of control over the federal government—one which spans agencies and seems to know no bounds absent federal court orders restricting it,” the plaintiffs wrote.
DOGE’s dismantling of USAID reflects only a portion of the Trump Administration’s efforts to roll back federal agency operations. Trump and Musk have defended the vast government cutbacks as a way to make government more efficient, more transparent, and less burdensome on the US taxpayer. However, multiple public policy leaders and commentators have spoken out, and many have filed lawsuits against the administration’s fast-moving efforts.
“Whatever DOGE is doing, it is certainly not…what democracy looks like or has ever looked like in the grand history of this country,” Democrat Senate Leader Chuck Schumer said in February floor remarks. “We should talk about reform, but we should talk about it the way it’s always been done in America, in the halls of Congress, in the public forums of the people’s government.”
