The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that centers on whether a nonprofit group can obtain records connected to President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and what limits apply when lower courts order discovery while still deciding whether DOGE is even subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Join the Discussion
What the court took up
The case is U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The justices added it to their 2026 merits docket, meaning the Court will schedule oral argument and later issue a decision on the merits.
No oral-argument date has been announced.
How it started
The case began in early 2025, when Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a FOIA request seeking records about DOGE, which was established to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government.
The request included attempts to obtain DOGE’s “organizational chart and financial disclosures.”
The Trump administration rejected the request, arguing DOGE is not subject to FOIA because it serves as an advisory entity to the president and operates as part of his office. CREW then went to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking an order compelling DOGE to produce records.
District court and stay
In spring 2025, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that DOGE is “likely covered by FOIA.” He ordered DOGE to “process CREW’s request on an expedited timetable and … begin producing documents on a rolling basis as soon as practicable,” and later permitted CREW to depose DOGE administrator Amy Gleason.
The Trump administration sought emergency relief at the Supreme Court. In June 2025, the Court granted a temporary pause of Cooper’s order by a 6-3 vote, concluding that “portions” of Cooper’s discovery order were too broad. The Court said those portions required “the Government to disclose the content of intra–Executive Branch [DOGE] recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed” and were “not appropriately tailored.”
The majority added: “[S]eparation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications.”
What the D.C. Circuit did
After the Supreme Court’s interim order, the case returned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On remand, CREW withdrew its request for several categories of records, but continued pressing for information through discovery.
Its remaining discovery targets included requests for information about actions “directed” by DOGE at federal agencies and all “directives” made by DOGE’s Administrator to DOGE employees.
The D.C. Circuit sided with CREW, allowing discovery to move forward and concluding the group had narrowed its requests in a way that complied with the Supreme Court’s interim order.
Questions for the justices
The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court in March, asking the justices to decide two issues:
- Whether the court of appeals’ order departed from the Supreme Court’s earlier instructions and the separation-of-powers principles the Court articulated in Cheney v. United States District Court.
- Whether a court may order broad discovery against an Executive Office advisory body, potentially providing much information sought on the merits of a plaintiff’s FOIA claims, to determine whether FOIA applies in the first place.
What comes next
The next step is the Court setting an oral-argument date. After argument, the justices will issue a decision resolving the discovery and FOIA-coverage questions in the dispute.