National Aeronautics & Space Administration v. Nelson
562 U.S. 134
SCOTUS2011Background
- NASA contracts out vast work; JPL uses contract employees with long-term facility access
- Respondents (contract employees) challenge SF-85 drug-use inquiry and Form 42 open-ended questions
- SF-85 asks about illegal-drug use and requires disclosure of treatment/counseling; Form 42 requests third-party information for suitability
- Background checks are conducted under Privacy Act protections; routine uses limit disclosures
- Court below enjoined parts; Court reverses, holding inquiries reasonable and regulated by Privacy Act
- NASA historically uses background checks; open-ended questions widely used in public/private sectors to assess suitability
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SF-85 and Form 42 violate informational privacy rights | Respondents claim privacy right violated | Government argues privacy interest outweighed by internal-operations need | No constitutional violation; inquiries reasonable under Privacy Act safeguards |
| Whether government contractor employees have less protection due to status | Respondents contend contractor status strengthens privacy claim | Proprietor interest applies regardless of civil-service status | Interests as proprietor extend to contractor employees forming functionally equivalent duties |
| Whether drug-treatment question is permissible and narrowly tailored | Treatment/counseling disclosure is overly intrusive | Question serves to identify rehabilitated users and mitigates risk | Reasonable employment-related inquiry; not unconstitutional under Whalen/Nixon |
| Whether open-ended Form 42 questions violate privacy protections | Open-ended questions invade private information | Open-ended questions are standard, efficient, broadly used | Open-ended inquiries are reasonable and compatible with purposes of background checks |
| Whether Privacy Act disclosures are sufficiently protected against public dissemination | Regulatory duties to avoid unwarranted disclosures insufficient | Act provides strong nondisclosure protections and routine uses are limited | Privacy Act protections adequate; no constitutional privacy violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (privacy interest in avoiding disclosure; statutory protections against disclosure uphold privacy)
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) (privacy protections via regulations; nondisclosure safeguards)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 598 (2008) (government as proprietor; freer state action in internal affairs)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (government interest in internal operations; personnel decisions aren’t all constitutional)
- Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (duty of judiciary to say what the law is)