The Department of Government Efficiency had a great week last week — at least at the Supreme Court. Lost amid the broyges between the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, and its most powerful one, President Trump, is the victory, in two separate cases, of the cost-cutting camarilla that Mr. Musk brought to Washington. The Supreme Court docket is the place to look for what of DOGE might endure the high-profile split.

The Nine weighed in on separate cases — both decided six to three — across what we’ve taken to calling the DOGE docket. In both the justices determined that the cost-cutters enjoy the constitutional upper hand. The first case turned on DOGE’s access to Social Security information. The high court halted the order by a Maryland judge, Ellen Hollander, upheld by the Fourth Circuit, that such access be blocked as a “fishing expedition.” 

The second case, like the first an emergency appeal, burbled up to the Nine from a lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that aimed to open DOGE to freedom of information requests. The administration, though, maintains that DOGE is merely an advisory agency, and therefore exempt from FOIA. Judge Christopher Cooper of the District of Columbia disagreed, ordering the agency to its open its books.

The high court disagreed, sending the case back to the District of Columbia Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals for further deliberations. The unsigned order — the court’s three liberals dissented with no written explanation — counseled  “deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications.” Judge Cooper’s order is meanwhile on hold.

These orders are far from final — the high court has yet to hear their merits. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent in the Social Security case warns of the “significant harm” that could flow from  what she calls the government’s “desire to ditch the usual protocols … before the courts have even determined whether DOGE’s access is lawful.” She reckons that her colleagues are being too profligate in granting requests for emergency hearings.

Mr. Trump told NBC News on Saturday that Mr. Musk, who donated some $250 million to the 47th president’s campaign for re-election, has disrespected “the office of the president” with his tirades. The Supreme Court’s remit is to take the long view on that office. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Trump v. United States, “unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.”

The tilt of the DOGE docket toward Mr. Trump adds to Mr. Trump’s archive of exceeding expectations in court. From beating back disqualification on the basis of the 14th Amendment — that was also a case brought by CREW — to securing presidential immunity to persuading Judge Aileen Cannon to disqualify Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Georgia court of appeals to boot District Attorney Fani Willis, his record is impressive.

Even if Messrs. Trump and Musk never renew their partnership — the president appears skeptical — DOGE’s durability could be a gift to future presidents who pursue novel means to pursue their agendas. The Times reckons that Mr. Musk’s “signature cost-cutting project has become deeply embedded in Mr. Trump’s administration and could be there to stay.” In that, the Supreme Court could be the best of friends to these ex-friends.