A big legal battle is brewing in Washington, D.C., and it involves some pretty big names—Elon Musk, former President Donald Trump, and a new government agency called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Fourteen states, led by New Mexico, have filed a lawsuit claiming that Musk’s role in running this agency is unconstitutional.
At the heart of the lawsuit is a rule in the U.S. Constitution called the Appointments Clause. This rule says that the president can only appoint certain government officials if Congress has first created the position and the Senate has approved the nominee. The lawsuit argues that Trump gave Musk way too much power without following these legal steps.
“There is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual,” the lawsuit states. In other words, the states suing believe that Musk was given too much control without proper checks and balances.
DOGE was originally a small government office that handled things like managing federal websites. But under Musk, it has supposedly turned into something much bigger, with sweeping authority to cut costs across different government departments. The lawsuit argues that Musk is acting like a high-ranking government official—making decisions and giving orders—without ever being officially appointed or confirmed.
The legal challenge is using a recent Supreme Court case as its foundation. Last summer, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from certain legal actions. In that same ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion that was later used to shut down the case against Trump’s handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Now, the states suing Musk and DOGE are using Thomas’ words to argue that Musk’s appointment also breaks constitutional rules.
The lawsuit points to Thomas’ argument that a president cannot simply create a government position and fill it without Congress’s approval. “By keeping the ability to create offices out of the President’s hands, the Founders ensured that no President could unilaterally create an army of officer positions to then fill with his supporters,” Thomas wrote in his opinion. The states argue that this is exactly what Trump did with Musk—gave him a powerful role that never went through the proper legal process.
In addition to the constitutional concerns, the lawsuit also accuses Musk and DOGE of operating beyond their legal authority. The states want the court to immediately stop Musk from using any government data collected by DOGE, destroy any copies of that data, and prevent him from making any further decisions under his current role.
The lawsuit even asks the judge to make a formal declaration that Musk’s actions so far—including anything done by his employees—are legally meaningless. They want the court to rule that any future decisions by Musk or DOGE should also be considered unlawful.
No judge has been assigned to the case yet, but given the big names and constitutional questions involved, this case is likely to attract major attention in the coming weeks.
