DOJ Files Notice of Corrections in AFSCME v. SSA — DOGE Unauthorized SSA Data Access Formally Acknowledged

On January 16, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Notice of Corrections to the Record in AFSCME et al. v. Social Security Administration et al., Case 1:25-cv-00596-ELH (D. Md.), formally admitting to Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander that DOGE personnel had engaged in data access practices that violated agency security protocols and potentially defied the March 2025 Temporary Restraining Order.

Case Background

The AFSCME case was filed in early 2025 challenging DOGE’s access to Social Security Administration databases containing the sensitive personal records of more than 300 million Americans, including Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, citizenship status, and parents’ names.

What the Notice of Corrections Disclosed

The January 16, 2026 Notice — submitted by the government after prior sworn declarations proved incomplete — formally acknowledged:

1. Unauthorized server transfer: DOGE team members shared SSA data via Cloudflare, an unapproved third-party server, outside agency security protocols
2. Voter data scheme: A DOGE affiliate signed a “Voter Data Agreement” as an SSA employee with an advocacy group (believed to be True the Vote) seeking to match SSA data to state voter rolls to challenge election results — signed March 24, 2025, four days after the TRO barring DOGE from accessing private data
3. Materially incomplete prior declarations: SSA acknowledged that previous representations to the court had contained material misstatements
4. Hatch Act referrals: Two DOGE employees referred to the Office of Special Counsel for Hatch Act violations for engaging in prohibited political activity

Prosecutorial Predicate Significance

This filing is load-bearing for state prosecution under the dual-sovereignty framework described by Christopher Armitage (“This is way bigger than RICO,” May 4, 2026). The Notice constitutes a government admission — in a federal court filing — that DOGE personnel:

• Accessed data of residents of all 50 states, including in states with Democratic attorneys general
• Violated agency security protocols and defied a court order
• Potentially violated computer-crime statutes (18 U.S.C. § 1030; state analogues in Maryland, Virginia, California, New York, and others)
• Potentially violated the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a)

Under Gamble v. United States (2019), state prosecutors may charge the same underlying conduct under state computer-fraud and identity-theft statutes regardless of federal non-prosecution.

Note: Relationship to Other Corpus Entries

This entry is distinct from and more specific than:

• 2026-01-16–doge-ssa-voter-data-scandal-hatch-act-violations — covers the same date but emphasizes voter data / Hatch Act angle; does not identify the case citation or the “Notice of Corrections” as a prosecutorial-predicate document
• 2026-01-20–doj-confirms-doge-social-security-data-breach — covers a later DOJ court filing; partially overlapping but distinct
• 2025-06-06–scotus-stays-doge-v-crew-foia-discovery — Supreme Court shadow-docket stay, different litigation track

The specific case citation (1:25-cv-00596-ELH) and “Notice of Corrections” label are cited by Armitage as the prosecutorial-predicate anchor and must be preserved as a distinct entry.