No, she did not rule that it is okay for the Valley Boys to play with your Personally Identifiable Information in the government's computers.
Click on this Author Photo, Docusigned Declaration dated February 10, 2025, filed in New Mexico v. Musk, Emergency Motion for TRO filed by State of New Mexico on Feb. 14, 2025, Doc. No. 6, Ex. 11 (D.D.C. No. 25-cv-429 (TSC)).
Fourteen States represented by their Attorneys General sued to keep Mr. Musk's interns from sharing your Personally Identifiable Information and accessing the federal government's computers. Their lawsuit is still pending. It asks a federal court for an injunction and to declare the computers off limits. Download New Mexico v. Musk Complaint Doc. No. 2 filed Feb. 14 2025 (D..D.C. No. 25.cv.429 (TSC)).
The Attorneys Generals' Offices include a lot of truly talented people. They convinced the judge of most of their case when they requested a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which is a special injunction intended to immediately preserve the status quo while the judge decides how to rule in the end. However, they failed to prove something crucial to their case, something they had to know is crucial from the beginning: irreparable harm if the Fourteen States did not get an injunction, at this time, a TRO.
The Fourteen Offices of the Fourteen State Attorneys General have access to all the agencies of their States. They knew going in that they would need to show irreparable harm to their clients, the Fourteen States.
Fourteen Attorneys General Offices. Whether or not they were asked before, every one of them must be asked to scour their own State's agencies for someone to be able to offer a Declaration or Affidavit on personal knowledge about the harmful effect of the Silicon Valley Boys from accessing computer networks at federal agencies.
By my count, and I probably missed one or two, their complaint identified 16 federal agencies that the Silicon Sillies accessed, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Of these three that particularly stand out, the complaint contains the most allegations about the CFPB, and even then there is no showing of irreparable harm. (A few details about the CFPB are alleged in Paragraphs 146-148 on page 34 of the Complaint that the 14 States filed on Valentine's Day, 2025, but nothing to evidence irreparable harm to the 14 States as a result of the interns rummaging about in the CFPB computer systems.)
Instead, the Complaint of Fourteen States refers a lot to newspaper reports about national security matters and potential effects on the States.
Not a word about CMS and its effects on any programs of the Fourteen States, even before the computer meddling began. The Complaint did allege that this agency is responsible for Medicare and Medicaid programs. Not a word about how interference with CMS's computers has affected Medicare and Medicaid programs administered by the States, the AGs' clients in this case. Medicaid in particular depends on the States; witness the continuing brouhaha over the refusal of a handful of States to expand the Medicaid programs in their States.
On the other hand, there were a couple of further allegations about the effect of the computer takeover on the CDC. The Complaint alleges that the computer takeover must have affected the Fourteen States, without any proof or plausible allegations of actual harm, even though we are still in the midst of a Pandemic and people are still dying, including people that rely on public health programs administered by the States.
The Request for a TRO parrots the Fourteen States' Complaint.
The Fourteen States' Attorneys General Offices did file eleven (11) Declarations with their Request for a TRO. I have reviewed them all. The persons who testified in the Declarations did not testify to any actual harm to the programs of any of the States.
It is worth noting something that the judge and her law clerks would have seen. One of these Declarations was submitted to the Court Docusigned by Mr. Wayne Propst of New Mexico. The title of his Declaration is "DECLARATION OF [NAME]," with the "[NAME]" highlighted in yellow, apparently waiting in vain to be filled in. The document is dated four (4) days before it was filed in the Court File. That's enough time to proof it and fill in the missing name, at the very least. See New Mexico v. Musk, Emergency Motion for TRO filed by State of New Mexico on Feb. 14, 2025, Doc. No. 6, Ex. 11 (D.D.C. No. 25-cv-429 (TSC)). Or so the judge and her law clerks would have seen it.
Record evidence in sworn Declarations and Affidavits of irreparable injury to these Fourteen States. That is what the judge looked for and did not find.
That's what she based her whole ruling on. She wrote plainly:
The court’s analysis here begins and ends with irreparable harm, “a threshold requirement in granting temporary injunctive relief.”
Order at page 5. Download New Mexico v. Musk Memorandum Opinion and Order Doc. No. 29 filed Feb. 18 2025 (D..D.C. No. 25.cv.429 (TSC)).
Perhaps this case would benefit from adding some individuals as plaintiffs. That could be an improvement but it would be an improvement only if they file Declarations and Affidavits documenting their irreparable injury.
Documenting irreparable injury. That's what the judge said was missing here:
When litigants have identified specific individuals or programs imminently targeted by Defendants, courts have issued appropriately tailored TROs.
Order at page 7 (emphasis added). Those who have eyes to see with, let them see. I have added boldfacing and italics to help in that effort.
We should soon see Declarations and Affidavits in the Court File documenting irreparable injury to the programs of these 14 States, and perhaps to specific individuals who will be added as plaintiffs in this case. It is to be hoped.
Note to the Fourteen Attorneys General Offices: If however you do not have the evidence, don't file the motion until the evidence develops. It is undoubtedly true that there has been tremendous pressure to stop the bleeding right now, so to speak. But the greater objective is to stop the Code Red Boys including Big Balls from seeing and sharing your citizens' Personally Identifiable Information.
In the meantime, the press has got it wrong again. Here's another ruling by a judge that the press just doesn't understand. Perhaps experienced and knowledgeable journalists would have known that Judge Chutkan's ruling was not an endorsement of Silicon Valley Arrogance.
Nor was her ruling an affirmation of the Re-Code Gang, the misbehaving children who escaped from computerland and were released inside the computers of federal agencies. That these male misfits are coding is ironic because in their Silicon Valley culture, they look down on coding as beneath them, as clerical, as the only work they will allow females to do in their Valley.
Experienced and knowledgeable journalists have been let go or taken early retirement with a deservedly profitable pay package. In either case, they are no longer around.
And it shows.
So, back to the case of the 14 States and their attempt to take computer access back from the Valley Boys. Either the 14 AGs will file another request for a Temporary Restraining Order or they will file a motion for a Preliminary Injunction, but either way they must get the evidence that the judge said she needs:
Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight. In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority. Accordingly, it cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs. The current record does not meet that standard.
Order at page 9 (emphasis added). Once again, still it must be said now, as was said thousands of years ago: "Those who have eyes to see with, let them see."
Hindsight is 20-20, but I think it is clear what happened here. It is clear even to a person like me who has had difficulty keeping up with all the recent events in D.C., as I suspect you have as well. It seemed sudden, as a result, that this case surprisingly posted an "L" in the Won-Lost Column of the Good Guys here. It is clear that the people who put their names on the Complaint in this case think of themselves as among the Good Guys.
Judge Chutkan's Order of February 18, 2025 shows the way to an eventual "W." Lawyers, go that way for the sake of the nation, for the sake of your Fourteen States, and last and least, for your own sakes.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2025 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law? Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter.