In a decision so cursory as to be flip, six members of the Supreme Court gave the most private, and beforehand the most confidential, of government information away. They didn’t even sell it for a decent price. They just gave it away. And with that, they murdered privacy.

When considering whether to grant a stay, this Court looks to four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U. S. 770, 776 (1987)). After review, we determine that the application of these factors in this case warrants granting the requested stay. We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.

Where, then, is the Supreme Court’s analysis of whether the DOGE meets these four factors? That’s it. That’s all there is. That is the complete, full, at length, long-winded, analysis. Not even a finger lifted to justify or explain why. Just a blithe “we conclude.”

Before this, District Judge Ellen Hollander issued a 137-page decision. The Fourth Circuit on appeal issued a 169-page en banc decision, which was upheld en banc. There are two things about these opinions worthy of note. The first is that they thoroughly, ad nauseum perhaps, parsed the facts and the law. The second is that they ruled against DOGE and stayed its access to information so private only a handful of people at the Social Security Administration were authorized to access it, none of whom was called “Big Balls” or had been fired for violating confidences by handing over information to adversaries.

But this Supreme Court majority saw it differently than the district and circuit courts, which in itself isn’t wrong per se. But this Supreme Court could not be bothered to explain itself any more than the government could be bothered in the courts below. From Justice Jackson’s dissent:

What the lower courts have done here is carefully craft interim relief tailored to the needs of the moment. To start, the District Court received sworn evidence about what DOGE wants to do and considered all of the interests at stake. Moreover, and importantly, the District Court  repeatedly asked the critical question: Why does DOGE need immediate, unfettered, and unprecedented access to highly sensitive non-anonymized data to accomplish its objectives?
The Government’s answers were “imprecise, contradictory, and insufficient.”  And when the court requested further clarification, the Government passed. (choosing instead to “‘stand on the record in its current form’”). Ultimately, the court found, the Government “never made clear why . . . the DOGE Team requires unbridled access to the [personally identifiable information] of countless Americans in order to effectuate [its] responsibilities.”

A bit cavalier, or perhaps the government recognizing that it had nothing, neither facts nor argument, and chose to stand pat rather than further humiliate itself by conclusively establishing that it was spewing the sort of vapid nonsense that only sells to Fox, OAN and the MAGA faithful.

Since the Supreme majority couldn’t be bothered, let’s run through the four factors upon which the Court gave away our personal information.

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the
merits.

Two courts, district and circuit, have already found otherwise. The Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act, both of which trump executive orders, say otherwise. And when asked directly why unfettered access to the private information of “countless Americans” was needed to do their job, the government offered empty platitudes without a scintilla of logic.

(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay.

Would DOGE be “irreparably injured” if the lower courts’ TRO wasn’t stayed? Notably, once DOGE gets access, including the ability to download it to a server or build in a backdoor, the only party irreparably injured will be “countless Americans” who can’t get their privacy back. DOGE might have to wait until the matter is resolved on the merits, but delay is hardly irreparable injury here, unless “Big Balls” has to complete his tenure before reaching puberty for some reason.

(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding.

The bell rung cannot be unrung, as we lawyers like to say. The private and confidential information of “countless Americans” cannot be unseen, undownloaded, unsold to data brokers or unmolested should “Big Balls” decide some nice folks on social security should be declared dead instead of getting their monthly payment. And then there’s the death list for immigrants, but that’s another matter.

(4) where the public interest lies.

Is the public interest greater in giving the unvetted Muskrats immediate unfettered access to the confidential information of “countless Americans” or to protect the privacy of those Americans?

But it’s too late now, as the Supreme Court has ruled. And with that ruling, it murdered privacy for the sake of DOGE. Countless Americans will never, but never, be confident that the confidential information they provide the government will be private again.