A federal judge late Friday rejected labor unions’ attempt to block President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency Service Temporary Service Organization from gaining access to sensitive data at the Department of Labor.

U.S. Senior District Judge John Bates, presiding in the District of Columbia, stated in his opinion that while the court has concerns about the DOL and the DOGE’s alleged conduct, the plaintiffs “failed to establish standing” in their motion for a temporary restraining order.

A collection of labor unions and a think tank—the Economic Policy Institute—filed a lawsuit and the motion for a temporary restraining order against the DOL and DOGE to prevent DOGE-affiliated personnel from gaining “unlawful” access to DOL systems or information.

The motion had argued that the DOGE could potentially gain access to information regarding American workers, labor statistics and even health information. The union groups alleged that this would be unlawful because the DOGE lacks legal authority to take these actions and the DOL is required under the Privacy Act of 1974 to get individuals’ approval before sharing records with another agency or person.

According to the judge’s opinion, on February 4, DOL leadership reportedly told its employees—including an unnamed DOL employee and member of a plaintiff, the American Federation of Government Employees—that the DOGE personnel would be accessing the DOL headquarters around 4 p.m. on February 5. That information from DOL leadership came with an instruction for employees to “do whatever [the DOGE] asks.” This included providing access to any requested department system without regard to security protocols.

While the plaintiffs argued that allowing the DOGE access to sensitive information will harm millions of workers or their families because it will result in “unauthorized access to sensitive employee health and disability data,” the court stated that association standing requires more than generalizations about the organization’s members.

Organizational standing also requires the plaintiff organization to “show actual threatened injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the alleged illegal action and likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision,” according to Bates’ opinion.

“In sum, plaintiffs fail to establish that any one of them has standing under either route an organization can take,” Bates stated. “That means they are not entitled to preliminary relief at this juncture.”

Bates ordered that the parties file a proposed preliminary injunction motion briefing schedule by no later than February 12.

The plaintiffs in the case are represented by the Democracy Forward Foundation, and the DOL is represented by attorneys Benjamin Kurland and Michael Jospeh Gerardi.