> JUSTICE JACKSON, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins,
dissenting from the grant of application for stay.
Today the Court grants “emergency” relief that allows the
Social Security Administration (SSA) to hand DOGE staff-
ers the highly sensitive data of millions of Americans. The
Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this
personal, non-anonymized information right now—before
the courts have time to assess whether DOGE’s access is
lawful. So it asks this Court to stay a lower court’s decision
to place temporary and qualified limits on DOGE’s data ac-
cess while litigation challenging DOGE’s authority to ac-
cess the data is pending. But the Government fails to sub-
stantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public
will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court’s interven-
tion. In essence, the “urgency” underlying the Govern-
ment’s stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be
bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.
That sentiment has traditionally been insufficient to jus-
tify the kind of extraordinary intervention the Government
seeks. But, once again, this Court dons its emergency-re-
sponder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable
power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them. See,
e.g., Noem v. Doe, 605 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (JACKSON, J.,
dissenting from grant of application for stay) (slip op., at 5)
(explaining that, by granting a stay, the Court was allowing
the Government to terminate the lawful parole status of
half a million noncitizens before the courts could determine
whether such agency action was lawful). Once again, re-
spectfully, I dissent.
> JUSTICE JACKSON, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins, dissenting from the grant of application for stay. Today the Court grants “emergency” relief that allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to hand DOGE staff- ers the highly sensitive data of millions of Americans. The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now—before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE’s access is lawful. So it asks this Court to stay a lower court’s decision to place temporary and qualified limits on DOGE’s data ac- cess while litigation challenging DOGE’s authority to ac- cess the data is pending. But the Government fails to sub- stantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court’s interven- tion. In essence, the “urgency” underlying the Govern- ment’s stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes. That sentiment has traditionally been insufficient to jus- tify the kind of extraordinary intervention the Government seeks. But, once again, this Court dons its emergency-re- sponder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them. See, e.g., Noem v. Doe, 605 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (JACKSON, J., dissenting from grant of application for stay) (slip op., at 5) (explaining that, by granting a stay, the Court was allowing the Government to terminate the lawful parole status of half a million noncitizens before the courts could determine whether such agency action was lawful). Once again, re- spectfully, I dissent.