-and-
The lawsuit alleges that Elon Musk has been unlawfully exercising sweeping executive authority over the federal government without proper constitutional appointment.
Source: New Mexico Department of Justice
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss a groundbreaking lawsuit led by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, with Arizona and Michigan Attorneys General serving as co-leads and joined by 13 additional states, the coalition is now cleared to move forward with its case against Elon Musk and the so-called ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ (DOGE).
The lawsuit alleges that Elon Musk has been unlawfully exercising sweeping executive authority over the federal government without proper constitutional appointment. The court’s ruling affirms that the states have standing to sue and that their claims merit judicial review.
“Today’s decision is an important milestone for preserving America’s system of checks and balances,” said Attorney General Torrez. “We filed this case to defend the Constitution and stop the dangerous precedent of allowing billionaire donors to dismantle federal agencies, cut vital public programs, and access sensitive state data without lawful authority. We are proud to move this case forward and help bring Elon Musk’s reign of terror to an end.”
“I’m proud to have brought this case on behalf of Arizonans, their personal privacy and our constitutional system,” said Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. “We will keep fighting Elon Musk and DOGE to ensure the Trump Administration follows the law.”
“Today’s decision by the courts is another step forward in holding the federal government accountable for the illegal and harmful sweeping authority vested in DOGE in direct and plain violation of the U.S. Constitution,” said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. “The Constitution, and the Appointments Clause, are not mere roadblocks for this administration to ignore. I look forward to continuing this case in court.”
In its opinion, the court agreed that the plaintiffs have suffered concrete and ongoing harms—including lost federal funds and unauthorized access to sensitive information—and that Elon Musk’s actions, conducted under the guise of DOGE, are plausibly unconstitutional.
Among other findings, the court noted:
- Musk and his DOGE team exercised “virtually unchecked power across the entire Executive Branch.”
- Under Musk’s direction, DOGE halted federal payments, terminated contracts, shuttered agencies, and seized data systems, all without statutory authority.
- Musk’s role was not merely advisory; he was acting as a de facto principal officer without Senate confirmation, in direct violation of the Appointments Clause.
The court’s decision clears the way for discovery and a full airing of the facts.
“Elon Musk may be leaving town, but this case will go on,” said Torrez. “No one should be allowed to outsource the presidency to one of their billionaire friends or exercise executive authority without the advice and consent of the Senate. This is about the rule of law, plain and simple.”
The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, challenges President Trump’s creation of the Department of Government Efficiency by executive order and Musk’s alleged role leading and directing that agency’s activities. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to halt any further unconstitutional actions.
