NASA v. Nelson

Last updated
NASA v. Nelson
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 5, 2010
Decided January 19, 2011
Full case nameNational Aeronautics and Space Administration, et al. v. Nelson, et al.
Docket no. 09-530
Citations562 U.S. 134 ( more )
131 S. Ct. 746; 178 L. Ed. 2d 667
Case history
PriorTemporary injunction granted, 506 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2007); District court denial reversed, 512 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2008); vacated and superseded, 530 F.3d 865 (9th Cir., 2008); rehearing en banc denied, 568 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009); cert. granted, 559 U.S. 990(2010).
Holding
NASA's background checks of contract employees do not violate any constitutional privacy right.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
ConcurrenceScalia (in judgment), joined by Thomas
ConcurrenceThomas (in judgment)
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
5 U.S.C.   § 552a

NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that NASA's background checks of contract employees did not violate any constitutional privacy right.

Contents

Background

In 2004, President George W. Bush, on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, issued a directive ordering new, uniform identification standards for federal employees, including contract employees. [1] Previously, federal contract employees were not generally required to undergo background investigation, except as required by specific contracts. Pursuant to this directive, the Department of Commerce mandated that contract employees with long-term access to federal facilities must complete a background check and set an October 2007 deadline for completion of this effort. [2] The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), a NASA facility that is operated by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) under government contract and hence is staffed entirely by contract employees, was subject to this requirement. In January 2007, NASA modified its contract with Caltech to include a new background-check requirement. All employees of JPL, including those deemed in low-risk positions, were informed that they must complete OPM form SF-85, which included an open-ended authorization to release effectively all personal information, or else they would be voluntarily terminated.

In August 2007, 28 JPL scientists and engineers including lead plaintiff Robert "Half" Nelson, a senior research scientist at JPL, sued NASA, Caltech, and the Department of Commerce in the District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the background-check requirement violated a constitutional right to informational privacy. The district court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order. [3] The circuit court held that portions of the background-check forms were likely unconstitutional, particularly portions requiring disclosure of drug treatment or counseling (which the court questioned whether the government had a legitimate interest in requiring), as well as open-ended questions soliciting "any adverse information" concerning financial integrity, mental stability, and "other matters" (which the court doubted were narrowly tailored to meet legitimate interests). The Ninth Circuit later denied rehearing en banc. [4] The government appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Opinion of the Court

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the background checks required of the JPL employees violated a right to informational privacy. In two previous cases, Whalen v. Roe and Nixon v. General Services Administration , the Supreme Court hinted that such a right might exist, but it had never settled the issue definitively. In an 8–0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the NASA background checks did not violate any such constitutional privacy right that might exist. The majority of the Supreme Court decided to leave open the question of whether any such constitutional right exists. Taking an approach similar to the Court in Whalen, they assumed, without deciding, that such a right does exist, and then ruled that the background checks do not violate such a right. In particular, they found that the government has a legitimate and long-standing interest in conducting reasonable employment background checks and said that courts should "keep those interests in mind when asked to go line-by-line through the Government’s employment forms and to scrutinize the choice and wording of the questions they contain". In addition, the Court found that the government's interests do not hinge on the distinction between federal civil-service employees and federal contract employees; the contract employees at JPL perform critical work, and the government has a strong interest in carrying out background checks on them.

Justice Scalia, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas, agreed that the background checks did not violate any constitutional rights, but argued that the Court should have settled the constitutional privacy question—in the negative. Scalia accused the respondents of asking the Court "to invent a constitutional right out of whole cloth" and dismissed their position as "farcical". Scalia criticized the Court's decision to evade the constitutional question, writing: "Thirty-three years have passed since the Court first suggested that the right may, or may not, exist. It is past time for the Court to abandon this Alfred Hitchcock line of our jurisprudence."

In addition to joining Scalia, Thomas also filed his own, very short (single-paragraph) concurrence, objecting to the idea of a constitutional right to informational privacy.

It was later revealed that Alito, who wrote the opinion of the Court, had cited a false statistic to justify the background checks. [5] Alito cited a statistics by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners saying 88 percent of private companies conduct background checks. [5] An investigation by ProPublica found that this statistic was made up. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jet Propulsion Laboratory</span> Research and development center and NASA field center in California, United States

Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) is a federally funded research and development center in Pasadena, California, United States. Founded in 1936 by Caltech researchers, the laboratory is now owned and sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and administrated and managed by the California Institute of Technology.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the restoration of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right. Both the essential holding of Roe and the key judgment of Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if they are unenumerated elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution. Courts have asserted that such protections come from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Substantive due process demarks the line between those acts that courts hold to be subject to government regulation or legislation and those that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve that function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent. In recent opinions, Justice Clarence Thomas has called on the Supreme Court to reconsider all of its rulings that were based on substantive due process.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision on upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling an abortion. The Supreme Court in Webster allowed for states to legislate in an aspect that had previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe v. Wade (1973).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel Alito</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2006 (born 1950)

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served since January 31, 2006. After Antonin Scalia, he is the second Italian American justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court and the eleventh Catholic.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts performed in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court ruling that the erroneous deprivation of a defendant's attorney of choice entitles him to a reversal of his conviction under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Locke v. Karass, 555 U.S. 207 (2009), is a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Constitution permits the local chapter of a labor union to charge a "service fee" to non-members to cover non-local litigation expenses if (a) the expenses are "appropriately related to collective bargaining" and (b) there is a reciprocal relationship between the local chapter and the national union. The case expanded on and clarified the earlier Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, which permitted such service fees for non-political activities but did not reach a consensus on whether "national" expenses were chargeable.

Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which the right to privacy applies to electronic communications in a government workplace. It was an appeal by the city of Ontario, California, from a Ninth Circuit decision holding that it had violated the Fourth Amendment rights of two of its police officers when it disciplined them following an audit of pager text messages that discovered many of those messages were personal in nature, some sexually explicit. The Court unanimously held that the audit was work-related and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the Fourth Amendment rights of government employees with regard to administrative searches in the workplace, during investigations by supervisors for violations of employee policy rather than by law enforcement for criminal offenses. It was brought by Magno Ortega, a doctor at a California state hospital after his supervisors found allegedly inculpatory evidence in his office while he was on administrative leave pending an investigation of alleged misconduct. Some of what they uncovered was later used to impeach a witness who testified on his behalf at the hearing where he unsuccessfully appealed his dismissal.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case on aspects of corporate personhood. It held that the exemption from Freedom of Information Act disclosure requirements for law enforcement records which "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" does not protect information related to corporate privacy.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, 564 U.S. 117 (2011), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held that the Nevada Ethics in Government Law, which required government officials recuse in cases involving a conflict of interest, is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the law requires government officials to recuse themselves from advocating for and voting on the passage of legislation if private commitments to the interests of others materially affect the official's judgment. Under the terms of this law, the Nevada Commission on Ethics censured city councilman Michael Carrigan for voting on a land project for which his campaign manager was a paid consultant. Carrigan challenged his censure in court and the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in his favor, claiming that casting his vote was protected speech. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that voting by a public official on a public matter is not First Amendment speech.

<i>Florida v. Jardines</i> 2013 United States Supreme Court case

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case which resulted in the decision that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overruling the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

Josette Bellan is a Romanian-French-American aerospace engineer and fluid dynamicist known for her research on turbulence in high-pressure reactions, and on the interactions between fluid dynamics and thermodynamics in these reactions. She is a senior research scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and visiting associate in the Department of Mechanical and Civil Engineering of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).

References

  1. ↑ Bush, George W. (27 August 2004). "Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12: Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors". U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved May 1, 2011.
  2. ↑ "FIPS PUB 201-1: Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and Contractors" (PDF). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. March 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 26, 2010. Retrieved May 1, 2011.
  3. ↑ Nelson, et al. v. NASA, et al.,530F.3d865(9th Cir.June 20, 2008).
  4. ↑ Nelson, et al. v. NASA, et al.,568F.3d1028(9th Cir.June 4, 2009).
  5. 1 2 3 "It's a Fact: Supreme Court Errors Aren't Hard to Find — ProPublica". ProPublica. Ryan Gabrielson. 2017-10-17. Retrieved 2017-10-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.