The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced it will review a prolonged dispute concerning the public disclosure obligations of the Department of Government Efficiency (DoGE), an initiative established by Elon Musk to reform federal government operations. The case centers on the extent to which DoGE must comply with federal public records laws when responding to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

DoGE was launched during President Donald Trump’s second term with a mission to streamline government agencies and reduce bureaucracy, including significant workforce reductions. Despite initial momentum, Musk left the initiative last year amid diminishing influence, internal tensions with the White House, and unmet expectations related to cost savings.

The nonprofit group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has sought access to DoGE’s records as part of its public accountability efforts. After DoGE failed to produce the requested documents, CREW filed a lawsuit alleging violations of federal public records requirements.

At issue before the Supreme Court is whether DoGE qualifies as a federal agency subject to FOIA disclosure or whether it should be treated like a presidential advisory group, which is typically exempt from such transparency rules. The Trump administration has argued the latter, maintaining that DoGE’s quasi-private status exempts it from full disclosure.

In a lower court ruling last year, U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper determined that DoGE was likely covered by FOIA and ordered the group to provide the requested records during discovery. This decision was upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court had previously been involved on a temporary basis, halting CREW’s efforts to obtain DoGE records pending further review, and remanding the case to the lower courts with instructions to narrow the scope of records subject to disclosure.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments on the matter early next year, with a ruling anticipated before the conclusion of the current term in late June or early July. The decision could clarify the transparency obligations of quasi-governmental entities operating under presidential direction and set precedent for similar disputes over public access to government records.