The US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can access sensitive federal data of millions of Americans, reversing a temporary injunction that was issued earlier this year.

Plaintiffs alleged that the access granted to DOGE by the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Department of Education (DOE) and Department of the Treasury (DOT) violated their rights under the Privacy Act. They alleged that the information accessible to DOGE included “Social Security numbers, bank records, tax returns, home addresses, [and] employment data.”

However, the court found that there was no violation because the Privacy Act allows records to be shared intra-agency.

The court emphasized the clear differences between a preliminary injunction and the decision to issue “ultimate relief.” A preliminary injunction requires a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, not a finding of actual success. Ultimately, the court found that the district court miscalculated the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, leading to the reversal of the preliminary injunction on appeal.

This case stems from Executive Order 14158, which was issued in January with the purpose of implementing “the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”

The executive order required the creation of a DOGE team within administrative agencies that would work with a DOGE agency outside of the administrative agencies. Plans were created that would give agencies DOGE teams high-level IT access to the systems.

DOGE’s IT access led to a lawsuit in federal district court, where the plaintiffs sought to permanently prevent the agencies from granting IT access to their DOGE team members. Plaintiff’s also requested a temporary restraining order to revoke the IT access given to DOGE team members. In February, the district court granted the temporary restraining order against OPM and DOE. In March, the district court granted the Plaintiff’s request for a longer-lasting preliminary injunction. The government immediately appealed, requesting a stay of the preliminary injunction.