On February 9, DOJ filed an emergency motion seeking to dissolve, modify or clarify a temporary restraining order issued by the U.S. SDNY, which prohibited certain political appointees and DOGE members from accessing the payment systems, payment records, and other data systems maintained by the Treasury.

As previously covered by InfoBytes, shortly after political appointees and “special government employees” — primarily from DOGE — were granted access to the Treasury’s payment systems, 19 states challenged such access, claiming it was unlawful and unconstitutional. In response, the district court prohibited all political appointees, special government employees, and government employees “detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department” from accessing the Treasury’s payment systems. The court restricted access only to certain civil servants “with a need for access to perform their job duties.”

In its February 9 filing, DOJ sought to dissolve the district court’s temporary restraining order, claiming the order was in “direct conflict with Article II of the Constitution,” and that the court drew an “impermissible and anti-constitutional distinction” between civil servants and political appointees. DOJ argued in the alternative that if the district court is unwilling to grant relief from its order, the order should be stayed pending the disposition of any appeal, or at a minimum that such relief be administratively stayed for a period of seven days to allow DOJ to seek an emergency expedited appeal from an appellate court.