Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has aligned with 20 other states to file an amicus brief advocating for an injunction to curtail the management practices at the Social Security Administration (SSA) under acting administrator Leland Dudek and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Concerns have been raised about possible erratic and unlawful actions that could disrupt payments for millions of Americans.
Initiated in the case of the American Association of People with Disabilities v. Dudek, the brief was submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Attorney General Mayes expressed her concerns, stating, "I am deeply concerned about the effects the reported efforts by DOGE are having on this critical agency."
Mayes highlighted numerous complaints from Arizonans facing issues like web service disruptions and delayed payments. She emphasized the reliance of approximately 1.5 million Arizonans on Social Security funds.
The brief resists what has been described as an unsteady approach by Dudek and DOGE, characterized by abrupt administrative changes and unsubstantiated layoffs impacting the agency's service delivery. The statements made by public figures such as Elon Musk and former President Donald Trump branding the SSA as inefficient were contradicted by the SSA’s Inspector General’s findings, which noted a minimal rate of improper payments due largely to administrative errors.
DOGE's staff reduction policy has resulted in operational difficulties, such as extended wait times for callers and issues with online service access due to IT staff layoffs. Despite SSA's administrative costs being a small fraction of its budget, there are continued plans for workforce reductions.
Social Security benefits are essential for many Americans, especially for basic needs, and facilitate eligibility for additional welfare programs. A survey by the National Academy of Social Insurance reveals the financial dependence of older Americans on Social Security, further substantiating the significance of uninterrupted benefits.
The plaintiffs argue that the staffing cuts violate the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Constitutional amendments. They seek a preliminary injunction to suspend further detrimental actions.
This legal effort through the brief, spearheaded by Connecticut and supported by other states including California, Colorado, and New York, aims to ensure the SSA’s stability and continued service to beneficiaries.
A copy of the brief is publicly accessible.