Left: This undated photo provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts shows U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts via AP, File). Right: Elon Musk gestures as he arrives for a state dinner hosted by Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in honor of President Donald Trump at Lusail Palace in Doha, Qatar, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has rejected an attempt from Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to have a lawsuit against them thrown out — ruling they “unsuccessfully” tried to “minimize” the tech billionaire’s role — while also handing a victory to President Donald Trump, granting his request to be dropped from the case.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled Tuesday that a multistate lawsuit against the president’s ally may continue, although President Donald Trump himself will no longer be a defendant. As Law&Crime has previously reported, 14 states sued Musk, DOGE, and Trump in February, arguing the defendants violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution by putting Musk at the head of the organization, which is not an official government agency.
The state attorneys general contended that Trump, Musk, and DOGE overstepped their authority in shrinking government agencies and firing federal workers, as Musk was never subject to Senate confirmation and Congress never authorized DOGE, which Trump established via executive order to “implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”
The defendants sought to have the case thrown out, arguing Musk was merely an adviser without formal authority. Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee, was unconvinced.
“The Constitution does not permit the Executive to commandeer the entire appointments power by unilaterally creating a federal agency pursuant to Executive Order and insulating its principal officer from the Constitution as an ‘adviser’ in name only,” the wrote. “This is precisely what Plaintiffs claim the Executive has done.”
The judge criticized the defendant’s “circular reading of the Appointments Clause that would allow the President to restructure the entire federal government without legislative authority and to evade judicial review.”
From Chutkan’s ruling, at length (citations omitted):
According to Defendants, the Appointments Clause “turns exclusively on the de jure — not de facto — authority that a person wields as a matter of law.” Under this theory, for a violation to occur, there must first be an office lawfully established and imbued with formal authority. But if the President creates a position without Congressional authority, there is no violation. Essentially, Defendants argue, so long as the Executive acts without Congressional authority, the court cannot review its conduct. Under this reasoning, the President could authorize an individual to act as a Prime Minister who vetoes, amends, or adopts legislation enacted by Congress, as an Ultimate Justice who unilaterally overrules any decision by the Supreme Court, as a King who exercises preeminent authority over the entire nation, or allow a foreign leader to direct American armed forces without violating the Appointments Clause.
“Defendants appear to sanction unlimited Executive power, free from checks and balances, but the Constitution prohibits unilateral control over ‘official appointments’ by ‘dividing the power to appoint the principal federal offices … between the Executive and Legislative Branches,”” Chutkan added.
The judge further dispatched the defendants’ argument that a court cannot review the president’s actions in this case.
“The fact that President Trump purports to create a position and assign it powers by Executive Order does not preclude review under the Appointments Clause,” she wrote.
“No branch may aggrandize its own appointment power at the expense of another and no branch may abdicate its Appointments Clause duties,” Chutkan added. “And the Judiciary has a duty to maintain ‘the constitutional plan of separation of powers.’ Consequently, the court will reject Defendants’ perverse reading of the Appointments Clause.”
Chutkan’s refusal to drop the case is a significant victory for the state plaintiffs, as she had previously expressed skepticism of their request for a temporary restraining order against Musk and DOGE — a request she ultimately denied.
The judge, however, also handed a meaningful victory to Trump — who has who has verbally attacked the her and accused her of targeting him personally — by dismissing him from the case. Chutkan, for her part, has firmly rejected accusations that she holds bias against the president.
The plaintiff states’ argument that the president may be constrained by a declaratory judgment that the defendants’ actions overstepped constitutional authority didn’t hold up under existing jurisprudence, the judge found.
“Declaratory judgment against the President, a ‘coequal branch of government,’ pertaining to the Executive’s exclusive powers under the Constitution ‘at best creates an unseemly appearance of constitutional tension and at worst risks a violation of the constitutional separation of powers,’” Chutkan wrote. “Consequently, the court will dismiss President Trump as a defendant.”
While Musk announced in a Tesla earnings call in April his intentions to step back from DOGE “significantly,” the plaintiffs, led by New Mexico, allege he “occupies a continuing position.” Chutkan found there was enough to this argument to let the case against Musk continue.
Musk’s work with DOGE and his prominent profile in Washington, D.C., caused his popularity to plummet in the initial months of the second Trump administration. While not everyone has been frustrated with Musk, critics have been loud and at times, violent, attacking Tesla dealerships and vehicles. The company also saw its earnings take a hit.
Chutkan also presided over Trump’s federal election interference case in which he was accused of working to subvert the results of the 2020 election. However, she dismissed the case following Trump’s 2024 electoral victory — at special counsel Jack Smith’s request.
