U.S. DOGE Service v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia
No. 25-1103 · October Term 2026 · Judicial Power
Before oral argument the model reads the case's structure and its docket: amicus briefs by side, the Solicitor General's position, the parties' types, the issue area, and which way the lower court ruled, against each justice's record on all of those. That separates the nine, and the table shows it. It does not yet separate cases well enough for a case-level number: the calibration chosen for that arm caps how sure nine correlated votes may make a case, so case-level odds wait for the transcript.
The case
The U.S. DOGE Service (USDS), an advisory body within the Executive Office of the President, is challenging a district court's broad discovery order aimed at determining if USDS is an "agency" subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals twice denied the government's petition for a writ of mandamus to narrow discovery, even after the Supreme Court previously remanded the case with instructions to consider separation of powers concerns. The Supreme Court must now decide if the D.C. Circuit's order disregarded its prior instructions and separation of powers principles, and whether such extensive discovery is permissible to determine FOIA applicability.
- Whether the D.C. Circuit's refusal to narrow discovery, despite a prior Supreme Court remand emphasizing separation of powers, aligns with the Court's instructions and precedent like Cheney v. United States District Court.
- Whether a court can compel broad discovery, including internal communications and depositions of high-ranking officials, against an Executive Office advisory body to determine if it is subject to FOIA in the first place, potentially revealing information sought on the merits of the FOIA claim.
- The case implicates the balance between government transparency under FOIA and the Executive Branch's need for confidentiality in its internal deliberative processes, particularly for presidential advisory bodies.
- The Court will consider the appropriate scope of judicial inquiry into the internal workings of the Executive Office of the President and the limits of discovery against such entities.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-29. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
The district court in this case entered a wide-ranging and intrusive discovery order against the U.S. DOGE Service (USDS)-a body within the Executive Office of the President tasked with advising the President-to determine whether that body's influence renders it an "agency" subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. This Court previously granted certiorari, vacated the court of appeals' denial of a writ of mandamus, and remanded for the court of appeals to "narrow" discovery in light of "separation of powers concerns." On remand, respondent withdrew several of its discovery requests, and the court of appeals again denied the government's mandamus petition without any new analysis regarding the remaining discovery, which includes numerous requests for internal communications and a deposition of USDS's head. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the court of appeals' order departed from this Court's instructions and the separation-of-powers principles that this Court articulated in Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004). 2. Whether a court may order broad discovery against an Executive Office advisory body-potentially providing much information sought on the merits of a plaintiffs FOIA claims-to determine whether FOIA's disclosure requirements apply in the first place.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Judicial Power cases, and when the lower court ruled liberal; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court liberal | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts has a strong record of protecting executive branch prerogatives and has authored opinions emphasizing separation of powers, which would likely lead him to scrutinize discovery orders that intrude on the Executive Office of the President. He joined the majority in Cheney v. United States District Court, which limited discovery against high-level executive officials. | 63% U.S. DOGE Service | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 197 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 730 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas generally favors a robust view of executive power and has consistently voted to protect the Executive Branch from perceived overreach by other branches, including in discovery disputes. His originalist approach often supports a strong, unitary executive. | 69% U.S. DOGE Service | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Judicial Power · 388 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 1,344 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito typically supports a strong executive and has shown a willingness to protect the Executive Branch from what he views as undue judicial or legislative interference. He often prioritizes separation of powers concerns, particularly when they involve the President's advisory functions. | 69% U.S. DOGE Service | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Judicial Power · 190 votes | 79% lower court liberal · 699 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor generally supports government transparency and access to information, which might lead her to be more open to discovery requests in FOIA cases. However, she also recognizes the importance of executive branch functioning and might consider the practical implications of overly broad discovery on presidential advisors. | 54% U.S. DOGE Service | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 58% Judicial Power · 149 votes | 48% lower court liberal · 560 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan, having served in the Executive Branch, understands the need for internal confidentiality in presidential advisory bodies. While generally supportive of FOIA's goals, she is also likely to be sensitive to separation of powers concerns and the potential for discovery to disrupt executive functions. | 54% U.S. DOGE Service | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 61% Judicial Power · 137 votes | 51% lower court liberal · 495 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch often emphasizes textualism and originalism, which could lead him to a strict interpretation of "agency" under FOIA, but he also has a strong record of protecting the separation of powers. He may be wary of judicial overreach into the Executive Branch's internal affairs. | 69% U.S. DOGE Service | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 83 votes | 75% lower court liberal · 278 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh generally supports a strong executive and has a history of deferring to the Executive Branch in separation of powers disputes. He is likely to be concerned about discovery orders that could impede the President's ability to receive candid advice. | 69% U.S. DOGE Service | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 73% Judicial Power · 62 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 235 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett generally adheres to a textualist and originalist methodology, which could influence her interpretation of "agency" under FOIA. She is also likely to prioritize separation of powers principles, potentially leading her to scrutinize broad discovery against the Executive Office. | 69% U.S. DOGE Service | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 71% Judicial Power · 49 votes | 76% lower court liberal · 168 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson generally supports government transparency and access to information, which might incline her to favor discovery in FOIA cases. However, she is also likely to consider the practical implications of broad discovery on the functioning of the Executive Office of the President and the balance of powers. | 54% U.S. DOGE Service | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 60% Judicial Power · 37 votes | 38% lower court liberal · 108 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the structural arm: the docket, the parties, the issue and the lower court, with no transcript yet.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-29.