Supreme Court Ruling Shakes Up Social Security — Big Win for Team Trump

Subscribe for free to eliminate ads

Disclaimer: The article may include the author's opinions.

Advertisement

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a program that was initiated during the Trump administration and was formerly led by Elon Musk, has been temporarily allowed extensive access to private data from the Social Security Administration (SSA) by the Supreme Court. While Social Security numbers, medical records, mental health data, and family court case files are all included in this data.

Advertisementads

This decision came through an unsigned order on Friday, siding with the Trump administration’s request and reversing prior rulings from lower courts that had blocked access to the information. The matter has now been sent back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for further review. The Court’s conservative majority voted in favor of DOGE, granting interim access to the SSA’s databases in a 6-3 decision. The liberal justices dissented, expressing a desire to postpone access while appeals are pending.

The case originated on the first day of President Trump’s second term, following his directive to streamline federal operations by modernizing government software and digital infrastructure under DOGE. The initial resistance came from Acting SSA Commissioner Michelle King, who chose resignation rather than compliance. Her successor, Leland Dudek, later granted DOGE the requested access, a move that faced criticism from political opponents who labeled it “unfettered.”

This development marks another legal victory aligned with constitutionalist principles. Earlier in the same week, the Court ruled unanimously against Mexico’s attempt to sue American firearms manufacturers and also issued a favorable ruling in a workplace discrimination case involving a straight woman.

In a separate action on Friday, the Court declined to intervene in legal challenges involving lawsuits filed by states and municipalities against oil companies, which aim to force fossil fuel firms to pay for alleged climate-related damages. Energy-producing states and industry stakeholders have warned that these lawsuits serve as a backdoor method for imposing anti-energy policies that could result in billions of dollars in costs, eventually burdening consumers.

O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, condemned the legal strategy as a left-wing attempt to weaponize the courts. “These lawsuits are designed not to help consumers, but to eliminate access to vital energy products and redirect funds toward partisan agendas,” Skinner stated. He also noted that continued resistance in the courts remains the best path to prevent consumers from being harmed by ideological litigation.

From the American Enterprise Institute, senior fellow Adam White emphasized the need for eventual Supreme Court intervention, warning that activist-driven lawsuits could soon escalate into broader efforts to regulate national energy policy through judicial pressure. It was noted by White that, for the sake of constitutional integrity and public interest, the issue would warrant the Court’s attention in the future.

The Trump administration had achieved yet another significant legal win just a week earlier. A Supreme Court decision that overturned lower court decisions terminated the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua who had previously been protected by Joe Biden under immigration “parole” safeguards.

This action overturned the previous injunction issued by a federal court in Boston and restored the administration’s authority to carry out deportations while legal challenges are still pending. Immigration parole, as defined by US law, allows temporary residency for public or humanitarian purposes. Despite being presented by the Biden administration as a border-control measure, the initiative has frequently come under fire for circumventing the established immigration procedures.

The Trump administration’s efforts to curtail such expansive use of parole have now been bolstered by this Supreme Court action, further strengthening the president’s broader agenda on immigration enforcement.

Share the article to spread the truth

Subscribe for free to eliminate ads