Judge Chutkan Lets Case Against Trump’s Shadow Government Proceed

By Michael Popok

A blockbuster ruling out of federal court just put the brakes on Donald Trump’s alleged attempt to bypass Congress and install a shadow government headed—at least in part—by none other than Elon Musk.

Federal District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan has ruled that a lawsuit brought by 14 states challenging the legality of Trump’s so-called “Doge” agency will not be dismissed. The lawsuit alleges that Elon Musk—through his de facto control of the Doge agency—has been exercising power over at least 17 federal departments and agencies, wielding sweeping executive authority without Senate confirmation, without proper legal appointment, and in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Chutkan, in a 50-page ruling, said the plaintiffs had alleged a valid injury and sufficiently stated a claim that must now proceed to the next stages of litigation, including discovery. In denying the motion to dismiss, she rejected arguments that Musk is some sort of “temporary special government worker”—a kind of Uber-style advisor with no real power. In her words, he “wields considerable power,” and the allegations that Trump effectively created an unauthorized agency with Musk at the helm were more than enough to get past this early hurdle.

Let’s break it all down.

A Separation of Powers Crisis

The central constitutional issue raised by the 14-state coalition is that Trump—via executive order—illegally created a federal agency and appointed Musk (and possibly others) to lead it, bypassing both Congressional authorization and Senate confirmation. Judge Chutkan made clear: only Congress has the power to create federal agencies. The president may nominate individuals to lead those agencies, but only with Senate confirmation.

In her opinion, Chutkan wrote:

“The Constitution divides and balances power across the three branches—the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary—as a vital check against tyranny and to promote effective governance.”

She zeroed in on the “Appointments Clause” of the Constitution, which embodies this principle of separated powers. It prevents a president from unilaterally creating new offices and staffing them with loyalists—precisely the concern voiced by the Framers in their efforts to prevent the rise of tyranny.

Indeed, Judge Chutkan quoted a prior opinion from none other than Justice Clarence Thomas:

“By keeping the ability to create offices out of the president’s hands, the Founders ensured that no president could unilaterally create an army of officer positions to then fill with his supporters.”

Allegations Against Elon Musk and Doge

The complaint outlines that Elon Musk allegedly inserted himself into the operations of at least 17 federal departments—controlling the disbursement of public funds, canceling federal contracts, dismantling agencies, eliminating regulations, and accessing secure government databases, including those at Treasury and Social Security.

All of this, according to the plaintiffs, occurred without proper legal authority and in ways that gave Musk sweeping, unsupervised powers typically reserved for Senate-confirmed officials. Judge Chutkan, when assessing a motion to dismiss, is required to accept the facts in the complaint as true—and based on those facts, she concluded the allegations were serious enough to proceed.

As she wrote:

“The Constitution does not permit the Executive to commandeer the entire appointment’s power by unilaterally creating a federal agency pursuant to an executive order, insulating its principal officer from the Constitution as an adviser in name only.”

Why Trump Got Dismissed—But the Case Moves Forward

Judge Chutkan did dismiss Donald Trump personally from the lawsuit, citing binding Supreme Court precedent that grants sitting and former presidents broad immunity for official acts. Notably, she relied on Mississippi v. Johnson, an 1866 case holding that courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin a president for performing official duties.

However, her decision to dismiss Trump as a party does not end the case. The Trump administration’s actions remain central to the litigation, as does Musk’s role. In short: Trump is out, but the actions of his administration—and the alleged unconstitutional creation of Doge—remain very much in play.

And while the immunity ruling shields Trump personally for now, the remaining claims could still lead to significant legal exposure for others involved and major constitutional rulings ahead.

What Comes Next

This was not a ruling on the merits. This was about whether the complaint stated a legally sufficient claim. It did. Now the case moves forward into discovery—potentially even depositions of Elon Musk and others who may have knowledge of Doge’s formation and operations.

Unless reversed at a later stage, the case may eventually be resolved at summary judgment or even trial, though many constitutional cases of this nature get decided on the papers alone.

The legal and political stakes couldn’t be higher. The court has now green-lit a lawsuit alleging that a former president unilaterally installed an unconfirmed private citizen to run parts of the U.S. government. If the claims bear out through evidence, it could become one of the most consequential separation-of-powers cases in a generation.

I’ll continue following this case closely—analyzing filings, court rulings, and the political fallout—right here. Stay tuned.

—Michael Popok, Legal AF