The Supreme Court on Friday issued rulings in favor of the Trump administration in two separate cases concerning the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), granting the agency expanded access to sensitive Social Security data and shielding it from certain transparency requirements.

The decisions mark the first time the high court has weighed in on DOGE-related disputes, with both rulings handed down along ideological lines. The court’s conservative majority sided with the administration, while the three liberal justices dissented, reports the Associated Press.

One of the cases involved a legal challenge to DOGE’s attempt to access detailed records from the Social Security Administration (SSA), including personal data such as salary history, medical information, and educational records of millions of Americans. A lower court had previously restricted that access under federal privacy laws.

In its unsigned order, the Supreme Court reversed the Maryland judge’s decision, writing, “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.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, warning that the court’s move “creates grave privacy risks” and enables “unfettered data access to DOGE regardless — despite its failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards.” Justice Elena Kagan also indicated she would have ruled against the administration.

The Trump administration has argued that DOGE requires broad access to federal databases to effectively detect and eliminate waste and fraud in government programs. Elon Musk, who previously led DOGE and helped shape its mission, has long targeted the Social Security system, once calling it a “Ponzi scheme” and emphasizing the need to cut fraud as a way to rein in government spending.

The federal judge in Maryland, Ellen Hollander, had previously described DOGE’s probe into Social Security as a “fishing expedition” and ruled that only anonymous data could be accessed unless a specific need was documented and background checks completed. DOJ attorneys said those restrictions would hinder DOGE’s ability to function.

Solicitor General John Sauer framed the case as an example of judicial overreach, accusing the courts of trying to micromanage executive branch operations.

The underlying lawsuit was brought by a coalition of retirees and labor unions, represented by Democracy Forward. It is one of more than two dozen active legal challenges to DOGE’s work, which has included agency overhauls and mass layoffs.

In a separate case, the high court also extended a pause on lower court orders that would have required DOGE to publicly release internal records. That lawsuit was filed by a government watchdog organization seeking more transparency around DOGE’s operations, particularly after Musk’s departure and the escalating rift between him and President Trump.

The rulings come amid mounting legal and political scrutiny of DOGE’s sweeping authority. While supporters argue the department is necessary to rein in bloated federal programs, critics say it poses serious risks to civil liberties and oversight.