Term: 2010
Docket: 09-530
National Aeronautics And Space Administration, Et Al., Petitioners v. Robert M. Nelson Et Al.
- Pro
09-530 NASA V. NELSON DECISION BELOW: 530 F.3d 865 JUSTICE KAGAN TOOK NO PART CERT. GRANTED 3/8/2010 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether the government violates a federal contract employee's constitutional right to informational privacy when it asks in the course of a background investigation whether the employee has received counseling or treatment for illegal drug use that has occurred within the past year, and the employee's response is used only for employment purposes and is protected under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. 2. Whether the government violates a federal contract employee's constitutional right to informational privacy when it asks the employee's designated references for any adverse information that may have a bearing on the employee's suitability for employment at a federal facility, the reference's response is used only for employment purposes, and the information obtained is protected under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-56424
In the case of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) v. Robert M. Nelson et al., 2010, NASA contractors challenged a policy requiring federal employees to undergo background checks for security clearances as an invasion of their privacy rights under the Constitution's information privacy component. The plaintiffs argued that questions about drug treatment or counseling were too intrusive and irrelevant to employment suitability decisions. However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of NASA, stating that these inquiries did not violate any constitutional right to informational privacy if they were used for legitimate government interests such as national security or managing its internal operations efficiently and effectively. The court also noted that there are protections in place against public dissemination of sensitive information collected during background investigations.
In the dissenting opinion for the case of NASA v. Nelson, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to avoid ruling on whether there is a constitutional right to informational privacy. He argued that such a right does not exist and criticized the court for assuming it does without any proper legal basis or historical support. Justice Scalia also contended that even if this supposed right did exist, it would not be violated by background checks since they are common in society and do not reveal highly personal information. Furthermore, he believed that federal contractors should expect these types of investigations as part of their employment conditions. Lastly, he expressed concern about potential implications of recognizing an undefined constitutional right to informational privacy which could lead to unpredictable judicial decisions in future cases.
