Supreme Court to Hear Case on Public Access to Records of Trump-Era Advisory Group DOGE

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine the extent to which the public can access records from presidential advisory bodies. The case involves the now-defunct Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an initiative spearheaded by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

CREW argues that DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a federal law enacted in 1966 that grants the public the right to request access to records from federal agencies. The Trump Administration, however, has contended that FOIA does not apply to DOGE because it was a presidential advisory body, not a federal agency.

The Supreme Court's decision will address whether discovery, a phase in legal proceedings where parties can collect information, can proceed in the CREW v. DOGE Service lawsuit. Experts suggest the ruling could have significant implications for government transparency and the future of public access to information from similar executive branch entities.

Path to the Supreme Court

CREW filed a FOIA request for information about DOGE's structure and inter-agency communications on January 24, 2025. When the requested documents were not provided, the organization filed a lawsuit on February 20, 2025. CREW President Noah Bookbinder stated at the time that the administration was acting as though the law did not apply to them.

In April 2025, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the case could proceed to discovery. The Department of Justice subsequently filed an emergency appeal in May 2025, asking the Supreme Court to intervene. The Supreme Court initially paused discovery orders and later directed the appeals court to narrow the requests, finding some concerning DOGE's recommendations to be "not appropriately tailored."

CREW revised its requests, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld them. The Trump Administration again appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court had not adhered to previous rulings by allowing "wide-ranging and intrusive discovery."

In response, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the question of whether the case can proceed to discovery. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled, but a ruling is anticipated by the end of the court's term in late June or early July 2027.

Potential Implications for Public Access

The Supreme Court's ruling will directly impact CREW's ability to obtain information that could support its argument that DOGE operated as a federal authority subject to FOIA. Margaret Kwoka, a law professor at Ohio State University, noted that discovery is crucial for uncovering key facts about DOGE's operations and authority, which were not extensively detailed publicly.

Experts warn that if the Supreme Court rules that DOGE is not subject to FOIA, it could set a precedent allowing future administrations to establish entities within the Executive Office of the President that conduct significant work, potentially outside the purview of FOIA.

"Whether an entity is subject to FOIA really determines how much information the public gets to know about it, and whether [entities] have any obligation to disclose their documents to the public," said Sara Creighton, an associate professor at Georgetown Law. "The founding principle of FOIA is that it’s crucial in a democracy to have an informed citizenry."

CREW's chief counsel, Nikhel Sus, stated that the organization will continue to pursue transparency, asserting that the public deserves to know the details of the administration's efforts to reshape the federal government. The Solicitor General's office, representing the administration, argued that the appeals court ruling intrudes on the autonomy of presidential advisors and could lead to burdensome discovery litigation for future administrations.

Related Records Lawsuits

The DOGE dispute is one of several legal challenges concerning government records during the Trump Administration. In 2025, American Oversight filed a lawsuit seeking to compel national security officials to preserve communications sent via the encrypted messaging app Signal, following reports of officials exchanging messages about planned military strikes.

Additionally, in April 2026, the same group sued the administration over a Department of Justice legal opinion that challenged the constitutionality of the Presidential Records Act, which mandates the preservation and transfer of presidential records to the National Archives. Both of these cases are ongoing.

In contrast, American Oversight secured a victory in August when a federal judge struck down an Energy Department policy that would have allowed the closure of pending FOIA requests without requesters reaffirming their interest. The court sided with the watchdog group in that instance.