Filed Date: Feb. 13, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This lawsuit challenges Elon Musk’s role in the second Trump administration, asserting that he performed significant governmental duties without official nomination by the President or confirmation by the Senate. On February 13, 2025, fourteen states—New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington—represented by their respective attorneys general, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Musk, his "Department of Governmental Efficiency" ("DOGE"), and Donald Trump. They alleged that Musk acted as a principal officer, and therefore, his actions in the administration without Senate confirmation violated the Appointments Clause and exceeded statutory authority. The case was assigned to District Judge Tanya Chutkan.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14158, creating DOGE and its temporary subsidiary, the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. According to the complaint, Musk—designated a "special government employee"—was granted sweeping authority across the Executive Branch, including directing federal employees, accessing classified systems, terminating personnel, halting government contracts, and dismantling federal agencies. The plaintiffs alleged these actions were ultra vires, exceeding Musk’s lawful authority and violating constitutional and statutory law. They argued Musk exercised more power than any non-president in modern history without being appointed or confirmed as an officer of the United States, thereby circumventing constitutional requirements, disrupting congressional oversight, and undermining separation of powers. The plaintiffs further asserted that Musk and DOGE’s unauthorized actions threatened state sovereignty by jeopardizing federal-state partnerships, disrupting funding for essential programs, and creating uncertainty in federally funded state initiatives.
Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to restore constitutional governance and halt further unauthorized exercises of executive power.
On February 18, 2025, Judge Chutken declined to grant a temporary restraining order, explaining:
Plaintiffs have not adequately linked Defendants’ actions to imminent harm to Plaintiff States in particular. . . . That said, Plaintiffs raise a colorable Appointments Clause claim with serious implications. Musk has not been nominated by the President nor confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as constitutionally required for officers who exercise “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.” Bypassing this “significant structural safeguard[] of the constitutional scheme,” Musk has rapidly taken steps to fundamentally reshape the Executive Branch. Even Defendants concede there is no apparent “source of legal authority granting [DOGE] the power” to take some of the actions challenged here. Accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, Defendants’ actions are thus precisely the “Executive abuses” that the Appointments Clause seeks to prevent. But even a strong merits argument cannot secure a temporary restraining order at this juncture. . . . [The Court] cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs' request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs. The current record does not meet that standard.
On March 12, 2025, Judge Chutkan granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery, allowing written discovery from Elon Musk, DOGE, and the U.S. DOGE Temporary Organization. Discovery was limited to information about agencies, employees, contracts, grants, and federal funding directly involving the plaintiff states, excluding President Trump. The court also modified the language of one interrogatory to focus on directives rather than recommendations. Defendants were ordered to produce requested documents and respond to interrogatories within 21 days, and their request to stay discovery was denied. Judge Chutkan further ruled that the plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction would be consolidated with a hearing on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2), expediting resolution.
However, on March 18, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of Musk, DOGE, the U.S. DOGE Temporary Organization, and President Trump, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the March 12 discovery order. The petition argued that the order violated separation-of-powers principles, improperly subjected White House officials to discovery, and was overly broad. Citing Cheney v. U.S. District Court for D.C., the government asserted that discovery against the Office of the President should be reserved for exceptional circumstances and contended that the district court failed to consider alternative resolutions. The petition sought to have the appellate court quash the discovery order and stay proceedings pending resolution.
Back in the district court, on March 20, 2025, Judge Chutkan consolidated this case with Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk (1:25-cv-00643), directing all filings to proceed under the lead case number. Several public interest plaintiffs—including the Japanese American Citizens League, Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists—sought to intervene and filed motions to proceed under pseudonyms and for expedited discovery, with briefing continuing through late March.
On March 26, 2025, the D.C. Circuit in In re Musk, No. 25-5072. 2025 WL 926608, granted an emergency stay, and Judge Chutkan accordingly stayed the March 12 discovery order and vacated a scheduled status hearing. This stay effectively paused discovery and related proceedings during the pendency of the mandamus petition.
Then, on May 6, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction and requesting dismissal of the Japanese American Citizens League plaintiffs’ complaint. On May 27, 2025, Judge Chutkan denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss. The court found the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that Musk and DOGE qualified as “officers of the United States” under the Appointments Clause and that their actions could plausibly amount to significant executive power beyond that permissible for a special government employee. The court also held that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged concrete and ongoing injuries supporting their standing to sue. However, the court dismissed President Trump from the lawsuit based on longstanding precedent barring injunctive relief against a sitting President for official actions. On June 6, 2025, the plaintiff states filed a motion in the district court to vacate the March 12 discovery order, explaining that they no longer planned to file a motion for preliminary relief, which was the basis for the expedited discovery. Citing the appellate court's stay, the district court, on June 10, 2025, held that it lacked authority to vacate the order, and therefore deferred resolution of the motion pending further action from the appellate court. Thereafter, on June 16, 2025, filed a motion to govern further proceedings in the appellate court.
On July 11, 2025, the D.C. Circuit denied the mandamus petition challenging the discovery order, returned the case to the district court, and lifted the stay that had paused discovery since March 26. As a result, Judge Chutkan’s March 12 order authorizing written discovery against Musk and DOGE is now fully in effect, and the plaintiff states may resume efforts to obtain information concerning agencies, employees, contracts, grants, and federal funding involving the defendants.
The case remains ongoing in the district court.
Summary Authors
Karma Karira (5/7/2025)
Victoria Tan (7/28/2025)
Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk, District of District of Columbia (2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69638651/parties/state-of-new-mexico-v-musk/
Appel, Rachel (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Gerard Joseph
Attorney, Joshua Dos
Attorney, Mark Reiling
Attorney, Eric Dean
Appel, Rachel (District of Columbia)
Barr, Daniel Clayton (District of Columbia)
Bendor, Joshua (District of Columbia)
Buxton, Maria Florence (District of Columbia)
Carrete, Astrid (District of Columbia)
Cedrone, Gerard J. (District of Columbia)
Day, David Dana (District of Columbia)
Downs, Carolyn (District of Columbia)
Endres, Kelsey (District of Columbia)
Evans, Jason (District of Columbia)
Ferguson, Robert Brent (District of Columbia)
Fernandes, Kalikoonalani Diara (District of Columbia)
Grayson, James (District of Columbia)
Green, Nicholas Reiss (District of Columbia)
Grunberg, Emma (District of Columbia)
Hamilton, Kate (District of Columbia)
Holzman, Timothy James (District of Columbia)
Huddleston, Kathryn Lynn (District of Columbia)
Kane, Ryan (District of Columbia)
Katz, Joshua (District of Columbia)
Kidd, Jeff (District of Columbia)
Kirschner, Adam (District of Columbia)
Lenz, Daniel Spector (District of Columbia)
Malloy, Tara (District of Columbia)
Marshall, Brian Simmonds (District of Columbia)
Perfrement, Steven J. (District of Columbia)
Potchen, Joseph E (District of Columbia)
Samant, Anjana (District of Columbia)
Simard-Halm, Malina (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69638651/state-of-new-mexico-v-musk/
Last updated Oct. 15, 2025, 3:23 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 13, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Fourteen state governments (New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, California, Connecticut, Hawai’i, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington)
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Department of Government Efficiency (- United States (national) -), Federal
United States of America (- 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
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: