Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C. No. 166)
Case Overview
Public Citizen, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the American Federation of Government Employees sued President Trump and the OMB to ensure the Department of Government Efficiency complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This case was consolidated with similar suits from the American Public Health Association and National Security Counselors.
The Application
Plaintiffs argue DOGE functions as an advisory committee providing counsel to the President and OMB, triggering FACA compliance obligations including public transparency and procedural requirements. The consolidated suits challenge whether DOGE's operations satisfy these statutory mandates.
The Conclusion
The case remains active in D.C. District Court under Judge Jia M. Cobb, with consolidated claims seeking to enforce FACA compliance requirements on the Department of Government Efficiency.
No circuit court data for this case.
No Supreme Court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
Public Citizen, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the American Federation of Government Employees sued President Trump and the OMB to ensure the Department of Government Efficiency complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This case was consolidated with similar suits from the American Public Health Association and National Security Counselors.
Overview
Public Citizen, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the American Federation of Government Employees sued President Trump and the OMB to ensure the Department of Government Efficiency complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This case was consolidated with similar suits from the American Public Health Association and National Security Counselors.
Issue
Whether the Department of Government Efficiency must comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act's requirements for public notice, open meetings, and balanced membership in its advisory operations.
Rule
The Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, requires federal advisory committees to operate with transparency, including public notice of meetings, open access, and balanced representation, subject to specific statutory exemptions.
Analysis
Plaintiffs allege that DOGE functions as a federal advisory committee under FACA and therefore must comply with statutory transparency and procedural requirements despite any asserted executive privilege or exemptions.
Analysis
Plaintiffs argue DOGE functions as an advisory committee providing counsel to the President and OMB, triggering FACA compliance obligations including public transparency and procedural requirements. The consolidated suits challenge whether DOGE's operations satisfy these statutory mandates.
Conclusion
The case remains active in D.C. District Court under Judge Jia M. Cobb, with consolidated claims seeking to enforce FACA compliance requirements on the Department of Government Efficiency.
Conclusion
The case remains active in the D.C. District Court before Judge Jia M. Cobb following consolidation with related suits; no ruling has been issued on the merits of whether DOGE qualifies as a FACA committee.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support