Disability advocates and Social Security recipients are asking a federal court to stop a controversial overhaul of the Social Security Administration. They argue that recent changes directed by a White House arm known as the Department of Government Efficiency are illegally restricting access to benefits for millions of vulnerable Americans.
The lawsuit, American Association of People with Disabilities v. Dudek, was filed April 2 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It targets what plaintiffs call a dismantling of key SSA functions under the influence of DOGE, an administration entity formed shortly after Donald Trump was inaugurated in early 2025 to reshape federal operations. Although Tesla and SpaceX chief executive officer Elon Musk holds no official government title, he is widely understood to be the driving force behind DOGE’s initiatives. The plaintiffs contend that DOGE’s directives have led to mass layoffs, office closures, and the removal of civil rights protections, harming people who rely on the SSA for survival.
At issue is whether the federal government can continue implementing those changes while the case proceeds. The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to pause the restructuring. The motion asks the court to temporarily block the SSA from executing DOGE’s directives, which include eliminating 7,000 staff positions and consolidating ten regional offices into four.
In a sworn declaration, legal aid attorney John S. Whitelaw described a March 4 meeting where Acting Social Security Commissioner Leland Dudek acknowledged the changes were driven by DOGE and the White House. “I don’t have a choice,” Dudek said, according to the filing. “These are DOGE people. I’m doing what I can.”
The plaintiffs argue the restructuring violates the Rehabilitation Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. They also raise constitutional concerns, pointing to the removal of internal grievance channels and the imposition of barriers to services, including requirements that many applicants appear in person despite disability-related limitations.
On April 16, the federal government filed its formal opposition to the request for injunctive relief. Defendants argued that the plaintiffs have not established standing or identified a final agency action subject to judicial review. “Plaintiffs’ motion fails at the threshold,” the government wrote, asserting that the court should not be asked to resolve “policy disagreements about how the Social Security Administration should best be run.” The filing also contends that plaintiffs failed to show they were excluded or denied services in a way that would support a Rehabilitation Act claim.
In support of the plaintiffs, 21 state attorneys general filed an amicus brief, warning that the SSA’s changes are already burdening state programs such as Medicaid and disability assistance. A separate filing from the Center for Medicare Advocacy described SSA as the “gateway to Medicare” and argued that its operational stability is critical to health care access.
Plaintiff declarations illustrate the stakes on the ground. Kay Chiodo, executive director of No Barrier Communications and CEO of Deaflink, recounted a case in which a deaf widow, unable to access an interpreter at her SSA appointment, had to rely on her young grandchild. “She sobbed. She was humiliated,” Chiodo wrote.
Wendy Walker, vice president of the San Antonio chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, stated that the cuts “will put blind people and others with disabilities in poverty.”
State attorneys general who filed the amicus brief are apparently concerned that the DOGE-led actions at SSA will leave disabled and elderly residents of their jurisdictions at unacceptable risk of harm. “The Social Security Administration is a lifeline for millions of Americans,” said Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, one of the 21 attorneys general supporting the lawsuit. “Undermining its operations through hasty and ill-conceived changes threatens the well-being of our most vulnerable citizens.”
The court has not yet set a date for a hearing on the injunction request. U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta is assigned the case.
About Author
Be First to Comment