Hollander stated that DOGE staff could access data that has been redacted or stripped of personal details, but only after they complete training and background checks.
She also mentioned that DOGE and its staff must delete any non-anonymized Social Security data they already have and cannot change the computer code used by the Social Security Administration.
Attorneys for DOGE argued that anonymizing the data would be too difficult and would hinder the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate Social Security fraud.
Appellate Judge Robert B. King, writing for the majority, said DOGE seeks immediate and unlimited access to all Social Security records. This includes sensitive personal information such as family court and school records, mental health and medical information of disability recipients, and financial details.
King wrote that people have shared this highly sensitive information with the Social Security Administration, expecting it to be well protected.
Appellate Judge Julius Richardson, who disagreed with the majority ruling, said the case should have been handled by a smaller panel of judges instead of the full group.
He also argued that the plaintiffs have not proven that DOGE has actually accessed any personal information, but they are upset about the possibility of potential harm.