By Javar Juarez (CUBNSC) New York, NY - A federal judge in New York has issued an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing unauthorized access to sensitive financial and personal data housed within the U.S. Treasury Department. This order, granted by Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York, specifically blocks access by individuals, including prominent figures, to Treasury servers containing personal financial and medical information of millions of Americans.
The legal action, spearheaded by New York Attorney General Letitia James and supported by 18 other state attorneys general, challenges the legality of access granted to certain individuals under the Trump administration. The plaintiffs argue that this access violates the Administrative Procedures Act and the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Given the urgency of the matter, the judge imposed an immediate administrative TRO until a more comprehensive hearing can take place.
Key Judicial Orders
Download the Court Order Here:
The court has mandated that any individual or entity that has already accessed the protected information must immediately destroy all obtained materials. The judge also scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing before Judge Jeanette Vargas on February 14, where the defendants must demonstrate why the TRO should not be extended.
The defendants in the case include former President Donald Trump in his official capacity, Scott Bassett of the Treasury Department, and others alleged to have facilitated or benefited from the unauthorized access. Until further court proceedings, all non-civil servant personnel, including political appointees and special governmental employees, are prohibited from accessing Treasury Department payment records or any system containing personally identifiable or confidential financial data.
Letitia James' Statement
Attorney General Letitia James has been vocal about the dangers posed by unauthorized access to sensitive financial data. In a public statement, she highlighted the alarming scope of information that had reportedly been accessed, including Social Security numbers, tax returns, and addresses. According to James, the intention behind this access was to potentially disrupt payments for essential services such as healthcare and childcare.
“This unelected group is not authorized to have this information, and they explicitly sought unauthorized access to illegally block payments that millions of Americans rely on,” James stated. “We are taking action to keep Americans’ personal data secure, uphold our Constitution, and stop this unprecedented and unauthorized attack.”
James further emphasized the broader implications of the case, noting that past efforts by Democratic attorneys general to challenge administrative overreach have seen significant success. The coalition has already secured multiple legal victories, and this case is expected to be another landmark ruling in holding government officials accountable.
Broader Legal Implications
The restraining order has significant national implications, effectively blocking any further access to Treasury data under the current administration. It also raises serious concerns about data security and unauthorized governmental delegation of access to private entities. The case is being closely watched, as it has the potential to set a precedent on how financial and personal data is handled within federal agencies.
Meanwhile, Treasury Department officials have downplayed concerns, stating that any operational reviews conducted were intended to improve efficiency rather than compromise security. However, the court order suggests otherwise, emphasizing the potential violation of constitutional safeguards and federal regulations.
As the case progresses, legal experts anticipate further developments, particularly regarding the constitutional challenges brought forth by the attorneys general. The upcoming February 14 hearing will be a critical juncture in determining whether the restraining order will be extended into a preliminary injunction, further reinforcing safeguards against unauthorized data access.
For now, the court’s decision stands as a significant legal check against attempts to compromise sensitive personal and financial information, ensuring that data security and constitutional protections remain paramount.
Comments