“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Elon Musk and the Trump Administration sought to stop any depositions of Musk and others about the Administration’s foreign aid cuts and dismantling of USAID.
What has happened in this case?
In early 2025, Trump and Elon Musk took action to significantly cut foreign aid and to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (AID). Former AID employees filed suit in federal court. Among other things, the former employees sought to take depositions and obtain other discovery of Elon Musk and several others involved in the actions against AID. The government sought a protective order seeking to stop such depositions.
The district court denied the motion, and the government sought a writ of mandamus from the Fourth Circuit prohibiting the depositions. Trump judge Marvin Quattlebaum granted the request in March 2026 in In re Elon Musk.George HW Bush judge Paul Niemeyer agreed, while Judge Roger Gregory, who was nominated by Presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush, dissented.
What was the rationale of Trump judge Quattlebaum?
Even though the district court judge concluded that the depositions could take place, Trump judge Quattlebaum maintained that the plaintiffs in the case had not shown the type of “extraordinary circumstances” that he claimed would be needed to justify taking the deposition of Musk and the other “high-ranking officials” involved. He also noted that other forms of discovery could be used. For now, at least, he stopped the depositions.
What did Judge Gregory say in dissent?
Judge Gregory strongly dissented. Initially, he explained, a review of relevant precedent showed that Musk and the other officials in this case should not be considered the type of “high-ranking” officials as to whom discovery is properly limited. Instead, he wrote, it is “profoundly ordinary” that advisers and officials like Musk “sit for depositions.” In addition, Gregory explained that significant written and other discovery had occurred, and that the proper course is to “defer to the district court’s determination that there is no alternative means for plaintiffs to secure the information they seek.” Gregory concluded that he was significantly “concerned” that the order ”immuniizing” Musk and others from depositions “frustrates justice” in this case.
.
Why is the result harmful?
Trump judge Quattlebaum’s order obviously frustrates the efforts to get to the bottom of what happened concerning AID and to produce an adequate remedy. It also sets a bad precedent concerning the use by the Trump Administration of writs of mandamus to stop discovery against it, particularly in the Fourth Circuit, which includes Virginia, Maryland, North and South Carolina, and West Virginia. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.