Supreme Court Urged to Reject Trump Administration’s Request to Delay FOIA Compliance

In a recent development, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has called upon the Supreme Court to reject the Trump administration’s motion to delay a district court ruling mandating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to provide information in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. This legal contention underscores a critical debate over whether DOGE is classified as a government agency and therefore subject to FOIA stipulations.

The case centers around DOGE, a department established by President Trump to streamline federal operations. On January 24, CREW filed a FOIA request that sought communications between Amy Gleason, DOGE administrator, and her staff. The request aimed to obtain documentation before Congress deliberated on federal government funding bills. Consequently, this led to CREW’s litigation in federal court to expedite discovery processes for determining if DOGE qualifies as an “agency” under FOIA.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper approved most of CREW’s discovery motions, including deposing Gleason. However, the government’s appeal to pause Cooper’s order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was unsuccessful. This paved the way for U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s appeal to the Supreme Court, citing that forcing DOGE to comply with these requests conflicts with separation of powers and detracts from DOGE’s mission to curb waste and inefficiency within the government.

In their recent brief, CREW acknowledged the implications of deciding whether DOGE is subject to FOIA but argued that Judge Cooper’s order should remain intact due to the factual nature of determining agency status—a process supported by limited judicial inquiries in the past. CREW further assured that DOGE would not incur permanent harm as the government retains the ability to assert objections during the discovery phase. As reported by SCOTUSblog, the Trump administration maintains the option to respond to CREW’s briefing, leaving the Supreme Court poised to address the administration’s request at its discretion.