Author
By Julia Goldberg, Source NM
The State of New Mexico is leading a new multi-state lawsuit against Elon Musk, the Department of Government Efficiency and Donald Trump, claiming that the actions Trump has allowed Musk’s DOGE to take violate the U.S. Constitution.
New Mexico did not join a separate lawsuit filed last week by a dozen state attorneys general challenging DOGE’s access to the Treasury Department but, in a statement last weekend, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez indicated he was in discussion with other AGs about filing a separate action challenging Musk.
That lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court, seeks a declaration that Musk’s role and actions are unconstitutional; an injunction to prevent Musk from issuing orders to federal agencies; and invalidation of all executive actions issued through DOGE. A separate suit by former federal employees makes comparable claims.
“We have initiated this action in court because the the things that we have seen and witnessed on the part of Mr. Musk fundamentally reshape our understanding of the limitations of the presidency,” Torrez said today during a news conference co-hosted by Arizona and Michigan’s attorney generals, Kris Mayes and Dana Nessel. “Simply put, the American people did not vote for chaos. They did not vote for disruption. And they did not vote for Elon Musk.”
Those actions include DOGE’s Monday cancellation of millions of dollars of contracts at the U.S. Department of Education.
Torrez described the suit, which has 14 plaintiffs as of today, as one that provides a “novel” question for the courts to “consider in this context.” Musk’s actions constitute “a fundamental restructuring of constitutional order and a violation of the rule of law,” he said.
Specifically, the suit argues that DOGE’s actions violate the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers and the Appointments Clause, specifically the portion that requires executive appointments to have congressional oversight.
“In the creation of DOGE and the creation of that office, President Trump has sought to elevate an agency, which was primarily responsible for the maintenance of government websites, into effectively a department of everything, and placed at the head of that department an individual who has not been submitted to an inquiry and a vetting by the Senate, and has not been subjected to the advice and consent clause of the United States Constitution,” Torrez said.
The lawsuit and the AGs compared Musk’s actions to that of a monarch, with the suit noting that while the United States’ “constitutional system was designed to prevent the abuses of an 18th century monarch, the instruments of unchecked power are no less dangerous in the hands of a 21st century tech baron.”
Over the last few weeks, Musk, the suit continues, “has roamed through the federal government unraveling agencies, accessing sensitive data, and causing mass chaos and confusion for state and local governments, federal employees, and the American people.”
Musk’s actions, Torrez said today, convinced him and the coalition of AGs that “we needed to take a comprehensive approach to him as an individual and to his role in the administration.” The executive order creating DOGE, Torrez noted, was limited in scope and put DOGE in charge of a “small office within the executive branch” that previously maintained website sand internet infrastructure. His subsequent actions, such as accessing the Treasury Department and the United States Agency for International Development made it evident that Musk’s scope was much larger.
“With each passing day there was, in our view, a new violation, a new betrayal of trust with the American people, and a new example of the disregard that he has for for our process, for the American government,” Torrez said, adding that he attributes that disregard in part to Musk’s roots in Silicon Valley.
“Move fast and break things may work in Silicon Valley for a tech company,” he said, but “it’s not good governance and it’s unconstitutional.”
New Mexico also is part of lawsuits against the federal government’s efforts to freeze funding; cut funding through the National Institutes of Health; and against President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
