Disclosure of personal information to DOGE “is irreparable harm,” judge rules

Re:Disclosure of personal information to DOGE “is irreparabl... by timr on Monday February 24, 2025 @11:05PM (#43168051)

It's the opinion of a single judge, before a trial has occurred. It has some meaning, but just last week a different judge said the opposite in a related case (as the article notes), so clearly, opinions will vary.

Must we have blaring headlines and political flamefests every time a judge issues an intermediate ruling related to DOGE?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Disclosure of personal information to DOGE “is irreparabl... by malfist on Monday February 24, 2025 @11:38PM (#43168239)

Yes. Because of the second part of what is required for a TRO. Irreparable public harm.

It should be news worthy

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Disclosure of personal information to DOGE “is irreparabl... by timr on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @02:27PM (#43176182)

"Irreparable harm"...IF AND ONLY IF the case is decided in favor of the plaintiffs, and there is determined to be harm from the behavior. Neither of which has actually occurred yet.

All the judge has done is to decree that:

a) her opinion is that the plaintiffs are "likely to" prevail, and

b) you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, so it makes sense to pause the behavior in question while trial is pending.

You're getting worked up over theoretical outcomes. TROs happen all the time, even in cases where the eventual outcome is in favor of the defendants.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Disclosure of personal information to DOGE “is irreparabl... by johnnyanmac on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @02:57AM (#43169350)

>Must we have blaring headlines and political flamefests every time a judge issues an intermediate ruling related to DOGE?

I believe that's how case ruling posts commonly work on HN (plenty of "the case may proceed" with tech company news), so I don't see why not. The whole process of law is slow so it's nigh impossible for it to flood HN.

[ Parent | on HN ]