U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan appears inclined to decline a request from 14 Democratic state attorneys general to block Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency from accessing federal agencies’ data. The District of Columbia-based judge argued that the states did provide enough initial evidence to justify a restraining order.

The states filed a lawsuit on Thursday, arguing that Musk’s far-reaching authority as the head of DOGE is unconstitutional under the Constitution’s appointments clause. Under the clause, powerful officers in the executive branch are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Musk, whom Democrats have blasted as an unelected billionaire allowed too close to people’s personal data, is classified as a special government employee.

The 14 states are requesting that a judge block Musk’s ability to carry out certain actions, such as canceling government contracts or ordering spending changes.

“Mr. Musk hasn’t been nominated, confirmed by Congress, or appointed to anything,” Chutkan said during an hourlong hearing on Monday, describing the states’ case. “He’s been sort of tasked with directing the actions of this organization. … This is essentially a private citizen directing an organization that’s not a federal agency that has access to the entire workings of the federal government, fire, hire, slash contracts, terminate programs all without apparently any congressional oversight.”

Chutkan agreed with the blue states that Musk and DOGE’s operations were taking place in secrecy, which she found troubling. She acknowledged that the department is moving so swiftly through different agencies that it is hard to determine conclusions about the legality of the moves.

“DOGE appears to be moving in no sort of predictable and orderly fashion, and plaintiffs are obviously scrambling to find out what’s next,” Chutkan said. “I don’t know if that’s deliberate or not.”

However, Chutkan said the 14 states were relying heavily on news reports speculating about the risks DOGE could pose, which could be hashed out in further litigation with many of the harms being addressed at a later date.

“I’m not seeing it so far. … It’s sort of like a prophylactic TRO, and that’s not allowed,” Chutkan said. “The courts can’t act based on media reports. We can’t do that.”

Justice Department attorney Joshua Gardner said any firings or funding cuts, which have occurred across several agencies and caused concern in Democratic and some Republican circles, are not being carried out by Musk but by officials within those agencies who have the authority to manage their own workforces.

“There is not a single instance of Elon Musk in his own name or the [U.S. DOGE Service] commanding any of these actions at all,” Gardner said during the hearing. “Somebody is signing that document, somebody is taking that action on behalf of the government. … All they’ve done is offer these kind of 100,000-foot allegations that Elon Musk is holding the puppet strings.”

At one point, Chutkan asked whether thousands of federal employees were fired last week, to which a DOJ lawyer said, “I have not been able to look into that independently, or confirm that.”

“The firing of thousands of federal employees is not a small or common thing,” Chutkan responded. “You haven’t been able to confirm that?”

Chutkan also took issue with the DOJ’s characterization that the 14 states’ attorneys general have “not offered a shred of anything, nor could they, to show that Elon Musk has any formal or actual authority to make any government decisions himself.”

“I think you stretch too far,” Chutkan said. “I disagree with you there.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The judge said she aimed to issue a ruling within 24 hours. Musk is also facing a lawsuit from former and current U.S. Agency for International Development employees for wielding “significant governmental” influence without being nominated to his position. The billionaire shut down USAID’s headquarters in early February, spurring outrage from Democrats who attempted to access the building but were denied.

The USAID lawsuit came after U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols issued a limited order to protect the 2,200 current USAID employees from being placed on leave until the case is reviewed in court. Nichols held the first hearing on Thursday regarding the case.