Russia Warns Foreign Troop Deployment in Ukraine Would Be Treated as Legitimate Military Targets 
Bill and Hillary Clinton Agree to Testify in Epstein Investigation 
Federal Reserve Faces Subpoena Delay Amid Investigation Into Chair Jerome Powell 
Stephen Miran Resigns as White House Economic Adviser Amid Federal Reserve Tenure 
Netanyahu Warns U.S. Envoy Iran Unlikely to Honor Nuclear Deal as Talks Resume 
Trump Lawsuit Against JPMorgan Signals Rising Tensions Between Wall Street and the White House 
New York Judge Orders Redrawing of GOP-Held Congressional District 
Trump Says U.S.–Iran Talks Continue as Military Tensions Remain High 
Trump Calls for “Nationalizing” Voting, Drawing Backlash Over Election Authority 
Elon Musk Seeks $134 Billion in Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft Over Alleged Wrongful Gains 
Trump Spoke With FBI Agents After Georgia Election Office Search, Report Says 
Minnesota Judge Rejects Bid to Halt Trump Immigration Enforcement in Minneapolis 
US Judge Rejects $2.36B Penalty Bid Against Google in Privacy Data Case 
Trump Administration Sued Over Suspension of Critical Hudson River Tunnel Funding 
Google Seeks Delay on Data-Sharing Order as It Appeals Landmark Antitrust Ruling 
Trump Announces U.S.–India Trade Deal Cutting Tariffs, Boosting Markets and Energy Ties 
Panama Supreme Court Voids CK Hutchison Port Concessions, Raising Geopolitical and Trade Concerns 
A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit brought by 14 U.S. states challenging Elon Musk’s role in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under President Donald Trump can move forward. The states allege that Musk, CEO of Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA), acted beyond his legal authority as a “special Government employee” in a role resembling a top federal officer within an agency lacking congressional approval.
The lawsuit contends that DOGE, established by executive order without legislative oversight, allowed Musk to exert wide-ranging control over federal spending, staffing, and regulatory decisions. Plaintiffs argue that Musk and the DOGE initiative dismantled existing agencies, canceled federal contracts, and accessed protected government systems—all without proper constitutional authority.
In a 42-page opinion, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit. She stated the plaintiffs presented credible “ultra vires” claims, indicating that DOGE’s operations and Musk’s influence may have violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The court emphasized the agency’s lack of statutory grounding and questioned the legitimacy of Musk’s federal role.
However, claims against President Trump in his official capacity were dismissed. The judge cited legal precedent that protects presidential discretionary powers from judicial intervention.
This ruling marks a significant development in a high-profile legal battle involving questions of executive power, constitutional limits, and the unprecedented appointment of a private tech executive to a powerful federal post. The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for the separation of powers and the role of unelected officials in U.S. governance.
With Elon Musk’s increasing entanglement in federal policy, this lawsuit may become a pivotal test case for how far executive authority can extend without congressional oversight or constitutional adherence.
