State of New York et al v. Donald J. Trump et al

Filing 108

ORDER re: 94 Letter filed by U.S. Department of Treasury, Donald J. Trump, Bessent Scott. Accordingly, to the extent a modification of the Court's Preliminary Injunction is required in this circumstance, the Court modifies the Prel iminary Injunction to exclude the PPS software application from the restrictions on access that were placed on employees, officers, or contractors employed or affiliated with the United States DOGE Service, DOGE, or the DOGE Team established at the Treasury Department. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jeannette A. Vargas on 3/7/2025) (ar)

Case 1:25-cv-01144-JAV

Document 108

Filed 03/07/25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as
:
President of the United States, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, United States District Judge:

Page 1 of 2

25-CV-01144 (JAV)
ORDER

The Court is in receipt of the letter dated March 3, 2025, from the Defendants (ECF No.
94), requesting clarification as to whether the Preliminary Injunction entered by the Court on
February 21, 2025 (ECF No. 76 (“Opinion and Order”)), prohibits access to a software
application used by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) known as Procurement for Public
Sector (“PPS”). The IRS uses PPS to automate the procurement request process. (ECF No. 94).
It allows the IRS to prepare, approve, and fund procurements; it tracks procurement requests; and
it contains information regarding purchase orders, delivery orders, task orders, contract awards,
and interagency agreements. Id. Defendants represent that PPS does not contain “any personally
identifiable information or federal tax information of the Plaintiff States.” Id.
In response, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are not seeking clarification of the language
of the Preliminary Injunction, but rather impermissibly seek a modification of the preliminary
injunction. (ECF No. 95). Plaintiffs contend that this relief cannot be granted absent a formal
motion or sworn declarations from the Defendants. Id.
The decision whether to modify a preliminary injunction “involves an exercise of the
same discretion that a court employs in an initial decision to grant or deny a preliminary

Case 1:25-cv-01144-JAV

Document 108

Filed 03/07/25

Page 2 of 2

injunction.” Weight Watchers Int’l, Inc. v. Luigino’s, Inc., 423 F.3d 137, 141 (2d Cir. 2005).
As stated in the Court’s Opinion and Order, the “remedy in this case must be narrowly tailored to
redress the specific harm asserted by the Plaintiffs: the threatened disclosure of the States’
sensitive bank information contained in the Treasury Department’s payment systems.” Opinion
and Order at 2. Accordingly, to the extent a modification of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction
is required in this circumstance, the Court modifies the Preliminary Injunction to exclude the
PPS software application from the restrictions on access that were placed on employees, officers,
or contractors employed or affiliated with the United States DOGE Service, DOGE, or the
DOGE Team established at the Treasury Department.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 7, 2025
New York, New York

________________________________
JEANNETTE A. VARGAS
United States District Judge

2