Federal Judge Deals Elon Musk a Blow: He Must Testify in DOGE Case
A Maryland federal judge has ruled that billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk cannot avoid testifying in a lawsuit challenging the shutdown of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which was allegedly orchestrated by Musk and his former colleagues.
In a ruling on Wednesday, Judge Theodore D. Chuang denied a motion for a protective order filed by Musk, former USAID deputy administrator Peter Marocco, and former DOGE team lead Jeremy Lewin. The judge found that the proposed testimony is justified and not barred by protections for high-ranking officials.
The lawsuit, which alleges Appointments Clause and separation-of-powers violations, stems from decisions made by Musk and others to dismantle USAID without lawful authority. The plaintiffs claim that this was an overreach of power and a threat to the separation of powers in the US government.
In rejecting the motion, Judge Chuang noted that the Fourth Circuit has not formally adopted an apex doctrine that would limit depositions of high-ranking officials. However, he emphasized that it was "at best unclear" whether Musk, Marocco, and Lewin qualify as high-ranking officials under this doctrine.
The court found that the plaintiffs have shown a specific need for testimony on Musk's role in DOGE and USAID, including the timing of appointments and the identity of decision-makers. The judge concluded that the information sought is not obtainable from other sources, requiring Musk and others to provide it.
This ruling advances discovery in the case, which will focus on the identity and authority of decision-makers and the timing of key actions tied to USAID's dismantling. A date for depositions has not been set, and it remains unclear whether Musk, Marocco, and Lewin will file further motions in the case.
The case is a significant development in the ongoing controversy surrounding Musk's role in the shutdown of USAID, which was allegedly orchestrated by him and his allies without proper authority. The ruling is likely to be closely watched by advocates for government transparency and accountability.
A Maryland federal judge has ruled that billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk cannot avoid testifying in a lawsuit challenging the shutdown of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which was allegedly orchestrated by Musk and his former colleagues.
In a ruling on Wednesday, Judge Theodore D. Chuang denied a motion for a protective order filed by Musk, former USAID deputy administrator Peter Marocco, and former DOGE team lead Jeremy Lewin. The judge found that the proposed testimony is justified and not barred by protections for high-ranking officials.
The lawsuit, which alleges Appointments Clause and separation-of-powers violations, stems from decisions made by Musk and others to dismantle USAID without lawful authority. The plaintiffs claim that this was an overreach of power and a threat to the separation of powers in the US government.
In rejecting the motion, Judge Chuang noted that the Fourth Circuit has not formally adopted an apex doctrine that would limit depositions of high-ranking officials. However, he emphasized that it was "at best unclear" whether Musk, Marocco, and Lewin qualify as high-ranking officials under this doctrine.
The court found that the plaintiffs have shown a specific need for testimony on Musk's role in DOGE and USAID, including the timing of appointments and the identity of decision-makers. The judge concluded that the information sought is not obtainable from other sources, requiring Musk and others to provide it.
This ruling advances discovery in the case, which will focus on the identity and authority of decision-makers and the timing of key actions tied to USAID's dismantling. A date for depositions has not been set, and it remains unclear whether Musk, Marocco, and Lewin will file further motions in the case.
The case is a significant development in the ongoing controversy surrounding Musk's role in the shutdown of USAID, which was allegedly orchestrated by him and his allies without proper authority. The ruling is likely to be closely watched by advocates for government transparency and accountability.