Supreme Court agrees to hear DOGE FOIA discovery dispute

The remaining discovery requests focus on whether DOGE had substantial independent authority. They seek information about its structure, internal records, and examples of whether it exercised authority on its own, including questions about access to sensitive systems. CREW also seeks evidence about alleged directions to cancel federal contracts and fire workers, as well as a deposition of Acting Administrator Amy Gleason.

Those are subjects CREW wants to investigate, not findings that DOGE issued such directions or took those actions. Establishing whether DOGE acted independently could help a court decide whether it falls under FOIA, which provides a process for requesting federal records.

The administration’s petition asks the justices to consider whether the appeals court departed from the Supreme Court’s earlier instructions and whether broad discovery into an advisory body in the Executive Office of the President can be used to determine FOIA coverage. The case is titled U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Why does the administration oppose discovery?

The administration describes DOGE as a presidential advisory body housed in the Executive Office of the President, rather than an agency covered by FOIA. It argues that discovery into the office’s structure and work intrudes on presidential advisers’ autonomy and confidentiality, and could burden the executive branch.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argues that discovery could expose information sought in the FOIA case before a court has decided whether the law applies. The administration’s position is that courts should not allow a broad inquiry into executive-office advisers to resolve that threshold question.

The Supreme Court’s June 2025 order cited concerns about separation of powers and called for narrower discovery. The Court said, “Separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications,” as CBS News reported.

What does CREW say is at stake?

CREW says the appeals court followed the Supreme Court’s earlier instructions and that evidence about DOGE’s structure and powers is necessary to test the government’s claim that FOIA does not apply. The group argues that the administration’s proposed limits could allow consequential bodies to avoid public-records scrutiny by placing them within the president’s office.

The dispute is about how courts can balance two concerns: protecting confidential presidential advice and allowing meaningful examination of the government’s account of an office’s authority. If courts cannot examine an entity’s actual structure and powers when its FOIA status is disputed, the government’s description of that entity may be harder to test. The administration, in turn, warns that discovery itself can intrude on presidential advisers before a court reaches the FOIA question.

The case has already been before the Supreme Court once. On June 6, 2025, the justices said discovery into the content of DOGE recommendations and whether agencies followed them was not appropriately tailored, and sent the matter back for the D.C. Circuit to narrow the order. On remand, CREW withdrew its requests for recommendation content. The D.C. Circuit then excluded some other requests while allowing the remaining discovery to proceed.

The Supreme Court’s agreement to hear the administration’s challenge does not decide whether DOGE is subject to FOIA or require the release of records. It brings the rules for gathering evidence about an executive-office body—and the public’s ability to scrutinize how it exercised government power—back before the justices.