Panama Supreme Court Voids CK Hutchison Port Concessions, Raising Geopolitical and Trade Concerns 
Bill and Hillary Clinton Agree to Testify in Epstein Investigation 
Israel Reopens Rafah Crossing, Offering Limited Relief to Gaza Patients Amid Ceasefire Efforts 
DOJ Urges Judge to Block Lawmakers’ Bid for Special Master in Jeffrey Epstein Records Case 
Trump Announces U.S.–India Trade Deal Cutting Tariffs, Boosting Markets and Energy Ties 
Trump Administration Sued Over Suspension of Critical Hudson River Tunnel Funding 
Google Seeks Delay on Data-Sharing Order as It Appeals Landmark Antitrust Ruling 
Russia Prepares for Post–New START Era as U.S.-Russia Nuclear Arms Control Nears Collapse 
Supreme Court Signals Skepticism Toward Hawaii Handgun Carry Law 
Supreme Court Signals Doubts Over Trump’s Bid to Fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook 
Medvedev Warns World Is Growing More Dangerous but Says Russia Seeks to Avoid Global Conflict 
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration Move to End TPS for Haitian Immigrants 
Federal Reserve Faces Subpoena Delay Amid Investigation Into Chair Jerome Powell 
Brazil Supreme Court Orders Asset Freeze of Nelson Tanure Amid Banco Master Investigation 
Trump Lawsuit Against JPMorgan Signals Rising Tensions Between Wall Street and the White House 
Costa Rica Election: Laura Fernandez Wins Presidency as PPSO Secures Congressional Majority 
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.
