Emergency application

DOGE and public records

U.S. Doge Service v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Granted

No. 24A1122Stay applicationFiled by the federal governmentPresented to The Chief JusticeFrom United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

What did the Court do?

The Court granted the request on June 6, 2025: the lower court's ruling is on hold while the appeal continues.

Emergency rulings are temporary and do not decide the underlying case. Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson would have ruled the other way.

Filed May 21, 2025Ruled June 6, 202516 days after filing

What's being asked

The federal government asks the Supreme Court to pause district-court orders requiring discovery while it seeks further review. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington seeks records about the U.S. DOGE Service's role, authority, and operations. The dispute is whether the Service counts as an agency under the Freedom of Information Act, which could affect access to its records. The government argues that the discovery order intrudes on presidential authority.

What the Court did

The Court paused the district court's April 15 and May 20 orders, granting the government's request for a stay (temporary pause). It agreed to hear the case and wiped out (vacated) the appeals court's denial of the government's request to halt discovery. It sent the case back (remanded) for reconsideration; Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson would deny relief, and no vote was published.

Dissented
Vote not published

Dissenting · 3recorded against the Court's order: Sotomayorwould deny
Kaganwould deny
Jacksonwould deny
Vote not published · 6the order does not say how they voted: Roberts
Thomas
Alito
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett

The order records the positions of 3 of 9 justices. The Court usually does not say how each justice voted on an emergency application, so the rest are shown as not published.

Half of 82 rulings on applications where the Court asked for a response came 10 to 26 days after filing, and the median was 17 days; this one was ruled on 16 days after filing.

What it means

The pause is temporary; it does not decide whether the U.S. DOGE Service is an agency under FOIA or who wins the records dispute. The appeals court must narrow the discovery order as directed. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, but has not set an argument date.

Sources

Facts on this page come from the Supreme Court docket, orders, and opinions for No. 24A1122. The answers restate that record in plain words; explainer copy is written from the record and the filings only.

Checked October 4, 2026

Docket timeline

FiledMay 21, 2025
Application (24A1122) for a stay, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Application (PDF)Appendix (PDF)Document 3 (PDF)
Response requestedMay 21, 2025
Response to application (24A1122) requested by The Chief Justice, due by Noon (EDT), on May 23, 2025.
Administrative stayMay 23, 2025
Order entered by The Chief Justice: Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants and the response filed thereto, it is ordered that the April 15, 2025, and May 20, 2025 orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 25-cv-511, are hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.
ResponseMay 23, 2025
Response to application from respondent Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed.
Response (PDF)Appendix (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Docket entryMay 23, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of Government Transparency Scholars filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)Document 3 (PDF)
Docket entryMay 23, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of American Oversight filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)
ReplyMay 24, 2025
Reply of applicant U.S. Doge Service, et al. filed.
Reply (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)
Referred to the full CourtJun 6, 2025
Application (24A1122) referred to the Court.
OrderJun 6, 2025
The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. Additionally, applicants suggested this Court treat the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari; doing so, the petition is granted (case No. 24-1246). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s order denying a writ of mandamus is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of this order. Cf. In re United States, 583 U. S. 29 (2017) (per curiam). The portions of the District Court’s April 15 discovery order that require the Government to disclose the content of intra–Executive Branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored. Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity’s ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications. Cf. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D. C., 542 U. S. 367, 385 (2004) (“[S]pecial considerations control when the Executive Branch’s interests in maintaining the autonomy of its office and safeguarding the confidentiality of its communications are implicated.”). On remand of the case, the Court of Appeals should take appropriate action to narrow the April 15 discovery order consistent with this order. The April 15, 2025, and May 20, 2025, orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 25-cv-511, are stayed pending remanded consideration at the Court of Appeals, and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson would deny the application.
16 days after filing
OrderJun 6, 2025
The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. Additionally, applicants suggested this Court treat the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari; doing so, the petition is granted (case No. 24-1246). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s order denying a writ of mandamus is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of this order. Cf. In re United States, 583 U. S. 29 (2017) ( per curiam ). The portions of the District Court’s April 15 discovery order that require the Government to disclose the content of intra–Executive Branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored. Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity’s ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications. Cf. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D. C., 542 U. S. 367, 385 (2004) (“[S]pecial considerations control when the Executive Branch’s interests in maintaining the autonomy of its office and safeguarding the confidentiality of its communications are implicated.”). On remand of the case, the Court of Appeals should take appropriate action to narrow the April 15 discovery order consistent with this order. The April 15, 2025, and May 20, 2025, orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 25-cv-511, are stayed pending remanded consideration at the Court of Appeals, and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson would deny the application.
16 days after filing

The case below

Ruling under review: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 25-5130
Filings: The application (PDF)Appendix with the lower-court ruling (PDF)