Filed Date: Jan. 20, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This lawsuit challenged the legality of the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) established by President Donald Trump via executive order on January 20, 2025 and led by Trump-appointees Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy (who has since stepped down). On January 20, 2025, two individual US citizens and a non-profit representing the interests of federal employees (National Security Counselors, Inc.) filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued DOGE, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), President Trump in his official capacity, and the Executive Office of the President (EOP). They sued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Mandamus Act, the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, and the All Writs Act. This case is one of multiple challenging DOGE under FACA (see also American Public Health Association v. Office of Management and Budget (1:25-cv-00167) and Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump (1:25-cv-00164)).
Represented by National Security Counselors, the plaintiffs claimed that DOGE is an advisory committee and that it violated requirements FACA places on advisory committees and those using advisory committees, including that advisory committees must: have fairly balanced membership in terms of members’ viewpoints and represented interests; refrain from inappropriate influence from special interests or the authority making appointments; file an advisory committee charter in advance of meeting or operating; have a Designated Federal Officer; be transparent in their meetings and procedures; give notice of meetings; and make meetings and records open and accessible to the public. The plaintiffs additionally claimed that the defendants’ actions (or lack thereof) implicated the APA, as the defendants’ instances of non-compliance amounted to final agency actions.
The complaint also alleged that the two individual plaintiffs applied to join DOGE’s membership in order to address the alleged lack of fair balance in DOGE’s membership. When the plaintiffs filed their complaint, they had not heard back from DOGE about their applications.
In relief, the plaintiffs sought: a declaration that DOGE is an advisory committee and thus must comply with FACA, “mandamus relief compelling Defendants to comply with the nondiscretionary requirements of FACA, a declaration that Defendants have violated FACA," "other declaratory and injunctive relief which would have the effect of prohibiting Defendant Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) from operating further—and prohibit Defendants Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, and Executive Office of the President from interacting with DOGE—until DOGE has complied with FACA,” attorneys’ fees and costs, expedition of the lawsuit, and any other appropriate relief. The case was assigned to Judge Jia M. Cobb.
On February 4, 2025, the defendants moved to consolidate this case, American Public Health Association v. Office of Management and Budget (1:25-cv-00167), and Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump (1:25-cv-00164), arguing that all three cases involve the same legal issue and claims and are in the same stage of litigation. The court agreed on Feb. 18, 2025, and directed that all filings be recorded only in the docket of the Public Citizen case. This Clearinghouse record is closed; see Public Citizen v. Trump for further developments.
Summary Authors
Sylvia Al-Mateen (2/9/2025)
Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69559476/parties/lentini-v-department-of-government-efficiency/
McClanahan, Kelly Brian (District of Columbia)
Deffebach, Anna Lynn (District of Columbia)
Humphreys, Bradley P. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69559476/lentini-v-department-of-government-efficiency/
Last updated April 21, 2025, 4:29 p.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Appointments/Civil Service)
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (DOGE Status/Information Access)
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 20, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two individual US citizens and a non-profit representing the interests of federal employees, National Security Counselors, Inc..
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Executive Office of the President (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: