Judge Deborah Boardman has once again thrust herself into the spotlight with a ruling that demands scrutiny—and frankly, it’s infuriating. Her recent decision to block the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing personal records at the Department of Education (DOE) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is a maddening overreach. This isn’t just a legal nitpick; it’s a direct attack on efforts to streamline a bloated federal government, and it’s hard to see it as anything less than judicial meddling.
DOGE, championed by figures like Elon Musk, is tasked with slashing inefficiencies and rooting out waste—goals any taxpayer should cheer for. Yet Boardman’s temporary restraining order, handed down in late February 2025, halts their access to critical data like Social Security numbers and financial records. Her reasoning? It violates the Privacy Act of 1974, which limits data sharing to agencies with a clear “need to know.” Fair enough on paper—privacy matters, and the law is the law. But let’s be serious: how is DOGE supposed to uncover fraud or mismanagement without seeing the numbers? This isn’t about protecting citizens; it’s about shielding a sluggish bureaucracy from real accountability.
This isn’t Boardman’s first rodeo, either. She’s the judge who struck down Trump’s birthright citizenship order on February 5, 2025, citing the 14th Amendment, and denied Maryland parents an opt-out from LGBTQ-themed school lessons in 2023. Her pattern is clear: she leans hard into privacy and rights, often at the expense of practical outcomes. Her past as a federal public defender might explain the instinct, but it doesn’t justify crippling a mission to fix government waste.
Yes, privacy safeguards are vital—no one disputes that. But DOGE’s purpose isn’t to spy; it’s to save money and make Washington work. Boardman’s ruling, while legally grounded, ignores the bigger picture and stalls progress. This decision will likely face an appeal—and it should—because if it stands, efficiency takes a backseat to red tape. She’s not safeguarding justice here; she’s obstructing it with a stubborn adherence to technicalities. Enough is enough.
