national
aeronautics
space
administration
et
al
nelson
et
argued
october
decided
january
national
aeronautics
space
administration
nasa
workforce
federal
civil
servants
government
contract
employees
respondents
contract
employees
nasa
jet
propulsion
laboratory
jpl
operated
california
institute
technology
cal
tech
respondents
subject
government
background
checks
time
hired
changed
president
ordered
adoption
uniform
identification
standards
federal
civil
servants
contractor
employees
department
commerce
mandated
contract
employees
access
federal
facilities
complete
standard
background
check
typically
national
agency
check
inquiries
naci
october
nasa
modified
contract
cal
tech
reflect
new
requirement
jpl
announced
employees
complete
naci
process
time
denied
access
jpl
face
termination
cal
tech
naci
process
long
used
prospective
civil
servants
begins
employee
filling
standard
form
standard
form
questionnaire
positions
asks
whether
employee
used
possessed
supplied
manufactured
illegal
drugs
last
year
employee
must
provide
details
including
information
treatment
counseling
received
employee
must
also
sign
release
authorizing
government
obtain
personal
information
schools
employers
others
investigation
completed
government
sends
employee
references
questionnaire
form
asks
questions
whether
reason
question
employee
honesty
trustworthiness
adverse
information
concerning
variety
matters
form
responses
subject
protections
privacy
act
deadline
completing
naci
process
drawing
near
respondents
brought
suit
claiming
relevant
process
violates
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
district
declined
issue
preliminary
injunction
ninth
circuit
reversed
held
inquiries
recent
drug
involvement
furthered
government
interest
combating
use
drug
treatment
counseling
question
furthered
legitimate
interest
thus
likely
held
unconstitutional
also
held
form
questions
narrowly
tailored
meet
government
interests
verifying
contractors
identities
ensuring
jpl
security
thus
also
likely
violated
respondents
rights
held
two
cases
decided
years
ago
referred
broadly
constitutional
privacy
interest
avoiding
disclosure
personal
matters
whalen
roe
nixon
administrator
general
services
whalen
upheld
new
york
law
permitting
collection
names
addresses
persons
prescribed
dangerous
drugs
finding
statute
security
provisions
protected
public
disclosure
patient
information
sufficient
protect
privacy
interest
arguably
root
ed
constitution
nixon
upheld
law
requiring
former
president
turn
presidential
papers
tape
recordings
archival
review
screening
concluding
federal
act
issue
like
statute
whalen
protections
undue
dissemination
private
materials
since
nixon
said
little
else
subject
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
pp
assuming
without
deciding
government
challenged
inquiries
implicate
privacy
interest
constitutional
significance
interest
whatever
scope
prevent
government
asking
reasonable
questions
sort
included
form
employment
background
investigation
subject
privacy
act
safeguards
public
disclosure
pp
forms
reasonable
light
government
interests
stake
pp
judicial
review
forms
must
take
account
context
government
challenged
inquiries
arise
government
acts
capacity
proprietor
manager
internal
operation
cafeteria
restaurant
workers
mcelroy
much
freer
hand
regulates
citizens
generally
questions
respondents
challenge
part
standard
background
check
sort
used
millions
private
employers
government
conducting
employment
investigations
since
republic
earliest
days
president
statutory
authority
assess
applicant
fitness
civil
service
since
standard
background
investigations
similar
issue
became
mandatory
federal
candidates
investigations
challenged
arose
decision
extend
requirement
federal
contract
employees
history
shows
government
interest
conducting
basic
background
checks
order
ensure
security
facilities
employ
competent
reliable
workforce
carry
people
business
interest
diminished
fact
respondents
contract
employees
meaningful
distinctions
duties
nasa
contractor
employees
especially
jpl
contract
employees
work
critical
nasa
mission
funded
multibillion
dollar
taxpayer
investment
pp
challenged
questions
form
reasonable
inquiries
government
interests
managing
internal
operations
treatment
counseling
question
followup
question
reasonable
inquiry
use
context
inquiry
also
reasonable
inquiry
government
recognizing
use
criminal
medical
issue
seeks
separate
drug
users
taking
steps
address
overcome
problems
thus
uses
responses
question
mitigating
factor
contractor
credentialing
decisions
rejects
argument
government
constitutional
burden
demonstrate
employment
background
questions
necessary
least
restrictive
means
furthering
interests
exacting
standard
runs
directly
contrary
whalen
see
pp
like
question
form
questions
reasonably
aimed
identifying
capable
employees
faithfully
conduct
government
business
asking
applicant
designated
references
broad
questions
job
suitability
appropriate
tool
separating
strong
candidates
weak
ones
reasonableness
questions
illustrated
pervasiveness
public
private
sectors
pp
addition
reasonable
light
government
interests
stake
form
also
subject
substantial
protections
disclosure
public
whalen
nixon
recognized
statutory
regulatory
duty
avoid
unwarranted
disclosures
generally
allays
privacy
concerns
created
government
accumulation
personal
information
public
purposes
whalen
supra
respondents
attack
government
collection
information
whalen
nixon
information
collected
shielded
statute
unwarranted
disclosure
privacy
act
allows
government
maintain
records
relevant
necessary
accomplish
purpose
authorized
law
requires
written
consent
government
may
disclose
individual
records
imposes
criminal
liability
willful
violations
nondisclosure
obligations
evidence
proper
concern
individual
privacy
whalen
supra
nixon
supra
respondents
claim
statutory
exceptions
privacy
act
disclosure
bar
see
leave
protections
porous
supply
meaningful
check
unwarranted
disclosures
argument
rests
incorrect
reading
whalen
nixon
privacy
act
pp
reversed
remanded
alito
delivered
opinion
roberts
kennedy
ginsburg
breyer
sotomayor
joined
scalia
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
thomas
joined
thomas
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
kagan
took
part
consideration
decision
case
national
aeronautics
space
istration
et
petitioners
robert
nelson
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
january
justice
alito
delivered
opinion
two
cases
decided
years
ago
referred
broadly
constitutional
privacy
interest
avoiding
disclosure
personal
matters
whalen
roe
nixon
administrator
general
services
respondents
case
federal
contract
employees
government
laboratory
claim
two
parts
standard
employment
background
investigation
violate
rights
whalen
nixon
respondents
challenge
section
form
questionnaire
asks
employees
treatment
counseling
recent
use
also
object
certain
questions
form
sent
employees
designated
references
assume
without
deciding
constitution
protects
privacy
right
sort
mentioned
whalen
nixon
hold
however
challenged
portions
government
background
check
violate
right
present
case
government
interests
employer
proprietor
managing
internal
operations
combined
protections
public
dissemination
provided
privacy
act
satisfy
interest
avoiding
disclosure
may
arguably
ha
roots
constitution
whalen
supra
national
aeronautics
space
administration
nasa
independent
federal
agency
charged
planning
conducting
government
space
activities
pub
stat
nasa
workforce
numbers
tens
thousands
employees
many
workers
federal
civil
servants
substantial
majority
employed
directly
government
contractors
contract
employees
play
important
role
nasa
mission
duties
functionally
equivalent
performed
civil
servants
one
nasa
facility
jet
propulsion
laboratory
jpl
pasadena
california
staffed
exclusively
contract
employees
nasa
owns
jpl
california
institute
technology
cal
tech
operates
facility
government
contract
jpl
lead
nasa
center
robotics
communications
country
unmanned
space
missions
explorer
satellite
mars
rovers
today
developed
run
jpl
jpl
scientists
contribute
nasa
projects
many
jpl
employees
also
engage
pure
scientific
research
topics
like
star
formation
history
universe
fundamental
properties
quantum
fluids
app
jpl
employees
respondents
many
worked
lab
decades
none
ever
subject
government
background
investigation
time
respondents
hired
background
checks
standard
federal
civil
servants
see
exec
order
cfr
instances
individual
contracts
required
background
checks
employees
federal
contractors
blanket
policy
place
government
recently
taken
steps
eliminate
approach
background
investigations
recommendation
commission
prompted
president
order
new
uniform
identification
standards
ederal
employees
including
contractor
employees
homeland
security
presidential
policy
common
identification
standard
federal
employees
contractors
public
papers
president
george
bush
vol
hereinafter
app
department
commerce
implemented
directive
mandating
contract
employees
access
federal
facilities
complete
standard
background
check
typically
national
agency
check
inquiries
naci
national
inst
standards
technology
personal
identity
verification
federal
employees
contractors
pp
fips
pub
mar
hereinafter
fips
pub
app
october
deadline
set
completion
investigations
memorandum
joshua
bolten
director
omb
heads
departments
agencies
app
january
nasa
modified
contract
cal
tech
reflect
new
requirement
jpl
management
informed
employees
anyone
failing
complete
naci
process
october
denied
access
jpl
face
termination
cal
tech
naci
process
long
standard
background
investigation
prospective
civil
servants
process
begins
applicant
employee
fills
form
questionnaire
employees
work
positions
respondents
complete
standard
form
office
personnel
management
opm
standard
form
questionnaire
positions
app
questions
seek
basic
biographical
information
name
address
prior
residences
education
employment
history
personal
professional
references
form
also
asks
citizenship
registration
military
service
last
question
asks
whether
employee
used
possessed
supplied
manufactured
illegal
drugs
last
year
answer
yes
employee
must
provide
details
including
information
treatment
counseling
received
ibid
truthful
response
form
notes
used
evidence
employee
criminal
proceeding
ibid
employee
must
certify
responses
form
true
must
sign
release
authorizing
government
obtain
personal
information
schools
employers
others
investigation
completed
file
agency
check
inquiries
begin
fed
reg
government
runs
information
provided
employee
fbi
databases
also
sends
form
questionnaires
former
employers
schools
landlords
references
listed
particular
form
issue
case
investigative
request
personal
information
form
goes
employee
former
landlords
references
form
document
takes
five
minutes
complete
see
ibid
explains
reference
name
provided
particular
employee
applicant
help
government
determine
person
suitability
employment
security
clearance
app
several
preliminary
questions
extent
reference
associations
employee
form
asks
reference
reason
question
employee
honesty
trustworthiness
also
asks
reference
knows
adverse
information
concerning
employee
violations
law
financial
integrity
abuse
alcohol
drugs
mental
emotional
stability
general
behavior
conduct
matters
ibid
yes
checked
categories
form
calls
explanation
space
space
also
available
providing
additional
information
derogatory
favorable
may
bear
suitability
government
employment
security
clearance
ibid
responses
form
subject
protections
privacy
act
act
authorizes
government
keep
records
pertaining
individual
relevant
necessary
end
required
accomplished
law
individuals
permitted
access
records
request
amendments
subject
certain
exceptions
government
may
disclose
records
pertaining
individual
without
individual
written
consent
two
months
october
deadline
completing
naci
respondents
brought
suit
claiming
relevant
process
violates
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
app
complaint
injunctive
declaratory
relief
district
denied
respondents
motion
preliminary
injunction
ninth
circuit
granted
injunction
pending
appeal
later
reversed
district
order
held
portions
form
likely
unconstitutional
preliminarily
enjoined
vacated
superseded
turning
first
appeals
noted
respondents
concession
questions
form
unproblematic
implicate
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
determined
group
questions
concerning
illegal
drugs
required
closer
scrutiny
ibid
applying
circuit
precedent
upheld
inquiries
recent
involvement
drugs
necessary
government
legitimate
interest
combating
use
went
hold
however
portion
form
requiring
disclosure
drug
treatment
counseling
furthered
legitimate
interest
thus
likely
held
unconstitutional
ibid
form
appeals
estimation
even
problematic
ibid
form
highly
private
questions
concluded
narrowly
tailored
meet
government
interests
verifying
contractors
identities
ensuring
security
jpl
result
held
questions
like
question
likely
violate
respondents
dissents
five
judges
ninth
circuit
denied
rehearing
en
banc
granted
certiorari
ii
noted
respondents
contend
portions
form
violate
right
informational
privacy
brief
respondents
considered
similar
claim
whalen
concerned
new
york
practice
collecting
names
addresses
persons
prescribed
dangerous
drugs
legitimate
illegitimate
uses
discussing
claim
said
cases
sometimes
characterized
protecting
actually
involved
least
two
different
kinds
interests
one
interest
avoiding
disclosure
personal
matters
interest
making
certain
kinds
important
decisions
free
government
patients
brought
suit
whalen
argued
new
york
statute
threaten
ed
impair
nondisclosure
interests
interests
making
healthcare
decisions
independently
however
upheld
statute
reasonable
exercise
new
york
broad
police
powers
whalen
acknowledged
disclosure
private
information
state
unpleasant
invasion
privacy
pointed
new
york
statute
contained
security
provisions
protected
public
disclosure
patients
information
sort
statutory
regulatory
duty
avoid
unwarranted
disclosures
accumulated
private
data
sufficient
view
protect
privacy
interest
arguably
ha
roots
constitution
thus
concluded
statute
violate
right
liberty
protected
fourteenth
amendment
four
months
later
referred
constitutional
interest
avoiding
disclosure
nixon
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
former
president
nixon
brought
challenge
presidential
recordings
materials
preservation
act
stat
note
following
statute
required
turn
presidential
papers
tape
recordings
archival
review
screening
section
opinion
entitled
privacy
addressed
combination
claims
review
required
act
violated
former
president
fourth
fifth
amendmen
rights
rejected
challenges
concluding
act
issue
like
statute
whalen
contained
protections
undue
dissemination
private
materials
indeed
observed
former
president
claim
weaker
one
found
wanting
whalen
government
required
return
immediately
purely
private
papers
recordings
identified
archivists
citing
fourth
amendment
precedent
also
stated
public
interest
preserving
presidential
papers
outweighed
legitimate
expectation
privacy
former
president
may
enjoyed
citing
katz
camara
municipal
city
county
san
francisco
terry
ohio
announced
decision
nixon
waning
days
october
term
since
said
little
else
subject
individual
interest
avoiding
disclosure
personal
matters
whalen
supra
nixon
supra
opinions
mentioned
concept
passing
contexts
see
department
justice
reporters
comm
freedom
press
new
york
ferber
decision
squarely
addressed
constitutional
right
informational
iii
approach
whalen
assume
present
purposes
government
challenged
inquiries
implicate
privacy
interest
constitutional
significance
hold
however
whatever
scope
interest
prevent
government
asking
reasonable
questions
sort
included
form
employment
background
investigation
subject
privacy
act
safeguards
public
disclosure
initial
matter
judicial
review
government
challenged
inquiries
must
take
account
context
arise
government
asks
respondents
references
fill
form
exercise
sovereign
power
regulate
license
cafeteria
restaurant
workers
mcelroy
rather
government
conducts
challenged
background
checks
capacity
proprietor
manager
internal
operation
ibid
time
cases
recognized
government
much
freer
hand
dealing
citizen
employees
brings
sovereign
power
bear
citizens
large
engquist
oregon
dept
agriculture
waters
churchill
plurality
opinion
distinction
grounded
realization
every
employment
decision
became
constitutional
matter
government
function
see
connick
myers
see
also
bishop
wood
due
process
clause
guarantee
incorrect
personnel
decisions
assessment
constitutionality
challenged
portions
form
must
account
distinction
questions
challenged
respondents
part
standard
employment
background
check
sort
used
millions
private
employers
see
brief
consumer
data
indus
assn
et
al
amici
curiae
hereinafter
cdia
brief
ore
companies
perform
background
checks
employees
government
conducting
employment
investigations
since
earliest
days
republic
white
federalists
study
administrative
history
see
opm
biography
ideal
history
federal
civil
service
noting
president
washington
set
high
standard
federal
office
finalized
appointments
investigating
candidates
capabilities
reputations
since
president
enjoyed
statutory
authority
ascertain
fitness
applicants
civil
service
age
health
character
knowledge
ability
employment
sought
act
mar
rev
stat
amended
act
appears
regarded
codification
established
standard
background
investigations
similar
issue
became
mandatory
candidates
federal
civil
service
exec
order
cfr
particular
investigations
challenged
case
arose
decision
extend
requirement
federal
contract
employees
requiring
access
federal
facilities
see
app
fips
pub
app
long
history
suggests
government
interest
conducting
basic
employment
background
checks
reasonable
investigations
applicants
employees
aid
government
ensuring
security
facilities
employing
competent
reliable
workforce
see
engquist
supra
courts
must
keep
interests
mind
asked
go
government
employment
forms
scrutinize
choice
wording
questions
contain
respondents
argue
contract
employees
civil
servants
government
broad
authority
managing
affairs
apply
diminished
force
government
interest
proprietor
managing
operations
cafeteria
restaurant
workers
supra
turn
formalities
see
board
wabaunsee
cty
umbehr
formal
distinctions
whether
service
provider
contract
employment
contract
services
government
poor
proxy
constitutional
interests
stake
fact
respondents
direct
employment
relationship
cal
tech
operates
jpl
government
contract
says
little
interests
stake
case
record
shows
practical
matter
elevant
distinctions
duties
performed
nasa
workforce
contractor
workforce
app
two
classes
employees
perform
functionally
equivalent
duties
extent
employees
access
nasa
facilities
turns
formal
status
nature
jobs
perform
ibid
jpl
particular
work
contract
employees
perform
critical
nasa
mission
respondents
case
include
lead
th
million
kepler
space
observatory
record
leader
program
tests
new
technology
nasa
use
space
app
one
lead
trajectory
designers
galileo
project
apollo
moon
landings
important
work
funded
multibillion
dollar
investment
american
taxpayer
see
nasa
jet
propulsion
laboratory
annual
report
online
http
government
strong
interest
conducting
basic
background
checks
contract
employees
minding
store
interests
view
conclude
challenged
portions
form
consist
reasonable
inquiries
government
interests
managing
internal
operations
see
engquist
whalen
part
form
challenged
request
information
treatment
counseling
received
use
within
previous
year
treatment
counseling
question
however
must
considered
context
followup
inquiry
whether
employee
used
possessed
supplied
manufactured
illegal
drugs
past
year
government
good
reason
ask
employees
recent
use
like
employer
government
entitled
projects
staffed
reliable
persons
discharge
duties
see
engquist
supra
questions
use
useful
way
figuring
persons
characteristics
see
breen
matusitz
updated
examination
effects
illegal
drug
use
workplace
human
behavior
social
environment
illicit
drug
use
negatively
correlated
workplace
productivity
context
question
treatment
counseling
recent
use
also
reasonable
inquiry
government
recognizing
use
criminal
medical
issue
seeks
separate
users
taking
steps
address
overcome
problems
government
thus
uses
responses
treatment
counseling
question
mitigating
factor
determining
whether
grant
contract
employees
access
federal
reasonable
indeed
humane
approach
respondents
dispute
legitimacy
government
decision
use
drug
treatment
mitigating
factor
contractor
credentialing
decisions
respondents
argument
drug
treatment
used
mitigate
government
change
mandatory
phrasing
include
answer
treatment
counseling
received
make
response
optional
app
stands
mandatory
treatment
counseling
question
unconstitutional
respondents
view
intrusive
necessary
satisfy
government
objective
brief
respondents
holding
treatment
counseling
question
enjoined
form
appears
compel
disclosure
reject
argument
government
requests
personal
information
employment
background
check
constitutional
burden
demonstrate
questions
necessary
least
restrictive
means
furthering
interests
exacting
standard
runs
directly
contrary
whalen
patients
whalen
much
like
respondents
argued
new
york
statute
unconstitutional
state
demonstrate
necessity
program
quickly
rejected
argument
concluding
new
york
collection
patients
prescription
information
held
unconstitutional
simply
viewed
unnecessary
whole
part
analysis
applies
even
greater
force
government
acts
regulator
manager
internal
affairs
see
engquist
supra
treatment
counseling
question
reasonably
seeks
identify
subset
acknowledged
drug
users
attempting
overcome
problems
government
considered
position
phrasing
question
permissive
terms
result
lower
response
rate
question
effectiveness
identifying
users
suitable
employment
materially
reduced
reply
brief
petitioners
reasonable
position
falling
within
granted
government
dealings
employees
see
engquist
supra
appeals
also
held
broad
questions
form
likely
violate
respondents
rights
form
asks
applicants
designated
references
landlords
information
bearing
suitability
government
employment
security
clearance
app
series
questions
government
asks
reference
adverse
information
applicant
honesty
trustworthiness
violations
law
financial
integrity
abuse
alcohol
drugs
mental
emotional
stability
general
behavior
conduct
matters
ibid
inquiries
like
question
reasonably
aimed
identifying
capable
employees
faithfully
conduct
government
business
see
engquist
supra
asking
applicant
designated
references
broad
questions
job
suitability
appropriate
tool
separating
strong
candidates
weak
ones
truly
daunting
task
catalog
reasons
person
might
suitable
particular
job
references
day
answer
laundry
list
specific
questions
see
cdia
brief
references
typically
limited
time
answer
questions
potential
employers
questions
yield
relevant
information
narrow
inquiries
form
contrast
takes
five
minutes
complete
fed
reg
reasonableness
questions
illustrated
pervasiveness
public
private
sectors
form
alone
sent
government
million
times
annually
ibid
addition
use
questions
employment
background
checks
appears
equally
commonplace
private
sector
see
bock
et
mandated
benefits
compliance
guide
exh
sample
policy
reference
checks
job
applicants
following
guidelines
conducting
telephone
reference
check
ask
questions
wait
respondent
answer
zweig
human
resources
management
also
ask
anything
else
need
know
candidate
name
kind
question
may
turn
kinds
information
gotten
way
use
similar
questions
government
reasonable
furthers
interests
managing
operations
form
reasonable
light
government
interests
stake
also
subject
substantial
protections
disclosure
public
whalen
nixon
recognized
government
accumulation
personal
information
public
purposes
may
pose
threat
privacy
whalen
see
nixon
decisions
also
stated
statutory
regulatory
duty
avoid
unwarranted
disclosures
generally
allays
privacy
concerns
whalen
supra
nixon
supra
whalen
relying
new
york
security
provisions
prohibiting
public
disclosure
turned
aside
challenge
collection
patients
prescription
information
nixon
rejected
regarded
even
weaker
claim
former
president
presidential
recordings
materials
preservation
act
ot
mandate
regulations
undue
dissemination
also
required
immediate
return
purely
private
materials
flagged
government
archivists
respondents
case
like
patients
whalen
former
president
nixon
attack
government
collection
information
form
less
whalen
nixon
information
collected
shielded
statute
unwarranted
disclosur
see
whalen
supra
privacy
act
covers
information
collected
process
allows
government
maintain
records
individual
extent
records
relevant
necessary
accomplish
purpose
authorized
law
act
requires
written
consent
government
may
disclose
records
pertaining
individual
act
imposes
criminal
liability
willful
violations
nondisclosure
obligations
requirements
noted
give
forceful
recognition
government
employee
interest
maintaining
confidentiality
sensitive
information
personnel
files
detroit
edison
nlrb
like
protections
disclosure
whalen
nixon
evidence
proper
concern
individual
privacy
whalen
supra
nixon
supra
notwithstanding
safeguards
respondents
argue
statutory
exceptions
privacy
act
disclosure
bar
see
leave
protections
porous
supply
meaningful
check
unwarranted
disclosures
whalen
supra
respondents
point
particular
describe
broad
exception
routine
use
defined
uses
compatible
purpose
record
collected
respondents
reliance
exceptions
rests
incorrect
reading
precedents
terms
privacy
act
cases
whalen
nixon
referred
approvingly
statutory
regulatory
protections
unwarranted
disclosures
undue
dissemination
personal
information
collected
government
whalen
supra
nixon
supra
neither
case
suggested
ironclad
disclosure
bar
needed
satisfy
privacy
interests
may
root
ed
constitution
whalen
supra
whalen
new
york
statute
prohibiting
ublic
disclosure
identity
patients
subject
several
exceptions
nixon
protections
undue
dissemination
mentioned
opinion
even
included
forthcoming
regulations
mandate
challenged
act
see
explaining
limiting
review
act
facial
validity
considering
administrator
forthcoming
regulations
thus
mere
fact
privacy
act
nondisclosure
requirement
subject
exceptions
show
statute
provides
insufficient
protection
public
disclosure
substance
routine
use
exception
relied
respondents
create
undue
risk
public
dissemination
none
authorized
routine
use
respondents
information
allows
release
public
fed
reg
fed
reg
amended
fed
reg
rather
established
routine
use
consist
limited
reasonable
steps
designed
complete
process
efficient
orderly
manner
see
whalen
supra
approving
disclosures
authorized
new
york
department
health
employees
meaningfully
distinguishable
routine
disclosures
associated
many
facets
health
care
one
routine
use
example
involves
limited
disclosure
persons
filling
form
designated
references
identify
individual
issue
understand
nature
purpose
investigation
app
authorized
jpl
employees
also
review
completed
verify
requested
information
provided
designated
jpl
employees
may
disclose
information
contained
form
anyone
else
cal
tech
given
access
adverse
information
uncovered
government
background
check
remote
possibility
public
disclosure
created
narrow
routine
use
undermine
privacy
act
substantial
protections
see
whalen
remote
possibility
statutory
security
provisions
provide
inadequate
protection
unwarranted
disclosures
sufficient
basis
striking
statute
citing
past
violations
privacy
respondents
note
possible
personal
information
disclosed
result
similar
breach
data
breaches
possibility
time
government
stores
information
recognized
whalen
mere
possibility
security
measures
fail
provides
proper
ground
attack
government
practices
ibid
respondents
also
cite
portion
warns
possible
disclosure
news
media
general
public
app
terms
exception
allows
public
disclosure
release
public
interest
result
unwarranted
invasion
personal
privacy
ibid
respondents
cited
example
disclosure
identified
plausible
scenario
information
might
unduly
disclosed
light
protection
provided
privacy
act
nondisclosure
requirement
challenged
portions
forms
consist
reasonable
inquiries
employment
background
check
conclude
government
inquiries
violate
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
whalen
supra
reasons
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
justice
kagan
took
part
consideration
decision
case
national
aeronautics
space
administration
et
petitioners
robert
nelson
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
january
justice
scalia
justice
thomas
joins
concurring
judgment
agree
course
background
checks
employees
government
contractors
offend
constitution
rather
reach
conclusion
basis
assumption
constitution
requires
courts
balance
government
interests
data
collection
contractor
employees
interest
privacy
reach
simpler
grounds
like
many
desirable
things
included
constitution
informational
privacy
seems
like
good
idea
wherefore
people
enacted
laws
federal
level
restricting
government
collection
use
information
people
enact
laws
shape
think
appropriate
repeal
federal
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
exist
addressing
constitutional
issues
however
must
observe
remarkable
telling
fact
case
unique
tenure
respondents
brief
arguing
federal
government
violated
constitution
identify
provision
constitution
might
table
authorities
contains
citations
cases
federal
state
courts
federal
state
statutes
rules
evidence
four
two
executive
orders
house
report
even
exotic
sources
law
two
reports
government
accountability
office
eeoc
document
concerning
enforcement
guidance
yet
contains
single
citation
sole
document
called
upon
construe
constitution
body
brief
includes
single
fleeting
reference
due
process
clause
buried
citation
assuredly
inapposite
lawrence
texas
brief
respondents
attempt
made
argue
nasa
actions
deprived
respondents
liberty
without
due
process
law
legal
strategy
limited
respondents
filing
ninth
circuit
respondents
asserted
courts
grounded
right
informational
privacy
various
provisions
constitution
brief
appellants
declined
identify
ones
applied
tell
truth
found
approach
refreshingly
honest
one
asks
us
invent
constitutional
right
whole
cloth
spare
us
pretense
tying
words
constitution
regrettably
lincolnesque
honesty
evaporated
oral
argument
counsel
asserted
apparently
first
time
litigation
right
informational
privacy
emerged
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
tr
oral
arg
counsel
invoked
infinitely
plastic
concept
substantive
due
process
make
constitutional
theory
less
invented
case
easily
resolved
simple
ground
due
process
clause
guarante
certain
unspecified
liberties
rather
merely
guarantees
certain
procedures
prerequisite
deprivation
liberty
albright
oliver
scalia
concurring
respondents
make
claim
state
deprived
liberty
without
requisite
procedures
due
process
claim
therefore
must
fail
even
formula
adopted
identifying
liberties
entitled
protection
faux
substantive
component
due
process
clause
due
process
clause
specially
protects
fundamental
rights
liberties
objectively
deeply
rooted
nation
history
tradition
washington
glucksberg
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
respondents
claim
fail
respondents
even
attempt
argue
claim
issue
case
passes
test
perhaps
recognizing
farcical
nature
contention
right
deeply
rooted
history
tradition
bars
government
ensuring
hubble
telescope
used
recovering
drug
addicts
absurdity
respondents
position
case
however
obscure
broader
point
due
process
precedents
even
substantive
due
process
precedents
support
right
informational
privacy
first
held
government
act
defamation
deprive
person
protected
procedural
guarantees
fourteenth
amendment
paul
davis
reasoned
stigma
standing
alone
significantly
alte
person
legal
status
justif
invocation
procedural
safeguards
outright
defamation
qualify
unimaginable
mere
disclosure
private
information
second
respondents
challenge
government
collection
private
information
government
collection
private
information
regulated
fourth
amendment
particular
amendment
provides
explicit
textual
source
constitutional
protection
particular
sort
government
behavior
amendment
generalized
notion
substantive
due
process
must
guide
analyzing
claims
county
sacramento
lewis
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
alteration
original
ninth
circuit
rejected
respondents
fourth
amendment
argument
correctly
holding
form
inquiries
third
parties
fourth
amendment
searches
miller
fourth
amendment
prohibit
government
asking
questions
private
information
end
matter
courts
use
due
process
clause
putty
fill
gaps
deem
unsightly
protections
provided
constitutional
provisions
sum
simply
hold
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
besides
consistent
constitutional
text
tradition
view
attractive
benefit
resolving
case
without
resort
exegesis
government
legitimate
interest
identifying
contractor
drug
abusers
comfortingly
narrow
scope
nasa
routine
use
regulations
shall
fill
reports
explanation
incoherence
substantive
due
process
doctrine
many
manifestations
since
play
card
instead
assume
without
deciding
exists
right
informational
privacy
ante
sole
justification
decision
assume
without
deciding
made
mistake
two
cases
whalen
roe
nixon
administrator
general
services
ante
stare
decisis
simply
irrelevant
pertinent
precedent
assumed
without
deciding
existence
constitutional
right
stare
decisis
reflects
policy
judgment
matters
important
applicable
rule
law
settled
settled
right
state
oil
khan
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
preferred
course
promotes
evenhanded
predictable
consistent
development
legal
principles
ibid
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
however
applicable
rule
law
settled
contrary
whalen
nixon
created
uncertainty
text
constitution
contain
today
opinion
perpetuates
reason
whalen
nixon
entitled
stare
decisis
effect
neither
opinion
supplied
coherent
reason
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
might
exist
supporting
authority
whalen
cited
stanley
georgia
first
amendment
case
protecting
private
possession
obscenity
deservedly
infamous
dictum
griswold
connecticut
concerning
penumbra
first
amendment
three
concurring
dissenting
opinions
none
remotely
intimated
might
thing
substantive
due
process
right
informational
privacy
nixon
provided
even
less
support
citing
observation
whalen
ne
element
privacy
characterized
individual
interest
avoiding
disclosure
personal
matters
nixon
supra
quoting
whalen
supra
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
proceeded
conduct
straightforward
fourth
amendment
analysis
assume
legitimate
expectation
privacy
materials
rejected
appellant
argument
statute
issue
precisely
kind
abuse
fourth
amendment
intended
prevent
nixon
supra
unfathomable
cases
passing
barely
explained
reference
right
separate
fourth
amendment
unenumerated
right
held
applicable
afforded
stare
decisis
weight
point
reader
may
wondering
harm
simply
refusing
say
violation
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
never
exist
outcome
case
long
holds
hypothetical
right
violated
well
harm
disposition
damage
several
reasons
important
sense
actually
minimalist
substituting
one
real
constitutional
question
whether
exists
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
different
constitutional
question
whether
nasa
background
checks
contravene
right
informational
privacy
right
existed
gets
pontificate
upon
matter
none
business
appropriate
balance
security
privacy
correct
exists
right
privacy
discussion
exercise
judicial
maximalism
better
simply
state
apply
law
forthrightly
hold
view
law
pectore
inquire
matters
beyond
charter
probably
beyond
ken
hand
believes
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
fail
see
minimalist
virtues
delivering
lengthy
opinion
analyzing
right
coyly
noting
right
assumed
rather
decided
years
passed
since
first
suggested
right
may
may
exist
past
time
abandon
alfred
hitchcock
line
jurisprudence
harms
image
makes
sense
decides
government
violate
right
informational
privacy
without
deciding
whether
right
informational
privacy
without
even
describing
hypothetical
standard
used
assess
whether
hypothetical
right
violated
explained
last
term
objecting
another
dispositions
decide
respondents
claim
fails
without
first
deciding
valid
claim
consist
greeing
crafting
hypothetical
standard
hypothetical
constitutional
right
sufficiently
unappealing
might
well
acknowledge
right
well
avoid
need
agree
craft
hypothetical
standard
denying
right
embracing
standard
coy
right
well
odd
deciding
case
addressing
neither
standard
right
quite
impossible
stop
beach
renourishment
florida
dept
environmental
protection
plurality
opinion
joined
alito
slip
whatever
virtues
judicial
minimalism
justify
judicial
incoherence
defends
approach
observing
guideposts
substantive
due
process
show
us
way
ante
thought
doctrinal
obscurity
lead
us
provide
clarity
lower
courts
surely
one
vague
opinion
provide
excuse
another
observes
joined
opinions
assumed
existence
constitutional
rights
ibid
course
acceptable
reserve
difficult
constitutional
questions
long
answering
questions
unnecessary
coherent
resolution
issue
presented
case
cruzan
director
mo
dept
health
declined
decide
whether
competent
person
constitutional
right
refuse
lifesaving
hydration
constitutional
standard
laid
detail
right
exist
incompetent
person
herrera
collins
declined
decide
whether
unconstitutional
execute
innocent
person
herrera
shown
innocent
new
york
state
club
city
new
york
declined
decide
whether
constitutional
right
private
association
certain
clubs
plaintiff
brought
facial
challenge
fail
statute
valid
many
applications
making
unnecessary
decide
whether
challenge
clubs
succeed
however
actually
applies
constitutional
informational
privacy
standard
without
giving
clue
rule
law
applying
provides
guidance
whatsoever
lower
courts
consider
sheer
multiplicity
unweighted
relevant
factors
alluded
today
opinion
relevant
government
acting
capacity
proprietor
manager
operation
ante
course
given
told
neither
appropriate
standard
government
acting
regulator
appropriate
standard
acting
proprietor
clear
effect
fact
analysis
least
know
something
history
tradition
role
play
ante
much
uncertain
points
federal
government
conducting
investigations
candidates
employment
since
earliest
days
hand
acknowledges
extension
investigations
employees
contractors
recent
vintage
contract
employees
important
work
mere
janitors
maintenance
men
working
million
observatory
ante
possibly
outcome
today
case
different
background
checks
employees
spirit
minimalism
never
told
questions
drug
treatment
hypothetically
constitutional
reasonable
useful
humane
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
questions
third
parties
constitutional
appropriate
pervasiv
ante
adjectives
may
hypothetical
standard
violation
hypothetical
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
evaluated
notes
regulatory
duty
avoid
unwarranted
disclosures
generally
allays
privacy
concerns
ante
emphasis
added
gives
indication
exceptions
general
rule
might
discusses
provisions
privacy
act
detail
placing
considerable
emphasis
limitations
imposed
nasa
regulations
ante
length
discussion
bet
privacy
act
necessary
today
holding
much
necessary
mystery
dramatically
increase
number
lawsuits
claiming
violations
right
informational
privacy
rare
claim
supported
none
factors
deemed
relevant
today
opinion
moreover
utter
silliness
respondents
position
case
leaves
plenty
room
possible
success
future
claims
meritless
slightly
less
absurd
respondents
claim
even
though
government
contractor
employees
even
though
working
highly
expensive
scientific
equipment
even
though
government
seeking
information
drug
treatment
information
third
parties
standard
background
checks
even
though
government
liable
damages
information
ever
revealed
even
though
nasa
privacy
act
regulations
protective
private
information
nasa
background
checks
unconstitutional
ridiculous
carefully
citing
factors
basis
decision
makes
distinguishing
case
simple
pie
future
cases
filed
circuits
recognize
rather
merely
hypothesize
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
lawyers
always
mean
always
find
way
around
today
opinion
perhaps
plaintiff
receptionist
janitor
protections
disclosure
less
robust
oh
yes
fact
losing
defendant
liable
damages
also
attorney
fees
greatly
encourage
lawyers
sue
defendants
safe
harbor
found
many
words
today
opinion
settle
plaintiff
claim
failed
today
makes
generous
gift
plaintiff
bar
deem
duty
judicial
department
say
law
marbury
madison
cranch
concur
judgment
national
aeronautics
space
administration
et
petitioners
robert
nelson
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
january
justice
thomas
concurring
judgment
agree
justice
scalia
constitution
protect
right
informational
privacy
ante
opinion
concurring
judgment
provision
constitution
mentions
right
cf
lawrence
texas
thomas
dissenting
find
neither
bill
rights
part
constitution
general
right
privacy
internal
quotation
marks
brackets
omitted
notion
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
wellspring
unenumerated
rights
federal
government
strains
credulity
even
casual
user
words
mcdonald
chicago
thomas
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
slip
footnotes
alternatives
naci
process
department
commerce
also
authorized
federal
agencies
use
another
office
personnel
management
national
security
community
investigation
required
federal
employment
app
none
alternative
background
checks
issue
positions
detailed
forms
required
see
opm
standard
form
questionnaire
public
trust
positions
online
http
internet
materials
visited
available
clerk
case
file
opm
standard
form
questionnaire
national
security
positions
online
http
government
sends
separate
forms
employers
form
educational
institutions
form
record
repositories
form
law
enforcement
agencies
form
fed
reg
none
forms
issue
respondents
sought
represent
class
jpl
employees
positions
app
class
certified
ninth
circuit
respondents
also
challenged
criteria
believe
government
use
determine
suitability
employment
jpl
respondents
relied
document
temporarily
posted
jpl
intranet
listed
factors
purportedly
bearing
suitability
federal
employment
app
among
listed
factors
failure
mee
financial
obligations
health
issues
mental
emotional
psychological
psychiatric
issues
factors
listed
heading
criminal
immoral
conduct
included
indecent
exposure
voyeurism
indecent
proposal
carnal
knowledge
document
also
stated
homosexuality
adultery
illegitimate
children
suitability
issues
might
pose
security
issue
circumstances
indicated
susceptibility
coercion
blackmail
appeals
rejected
respondents
challenges
suitability
determination
unripe
although
respondents
file
portion
ninth
circuit
judgment
nonetheless
discuss
suitability
criteria
length
brief
respondents
challenge
criteria
us
note
however
acting
solicitor
general
statement
oral
argument
nasa
use
document
respondents
object
make
contractor
credentialing
decisions
tr
oral
arg
citing
olmstead
brandeis
dissenting
describing
right
let
alone
right
valued
civilized
men
griswold
connecticut
first
amendment
penumbra
privacy
protected
governmental
intrusion
stanley
georgia
california
bankers
assn
shultz
douglas
dissenting
powell
concurring
citing
roe
wade
doe
bolton
loving
virginia
griswold
connecticut
supra
pierce
society
sisters
meyer
nebraska
allgeyer
louisiana
continued
discussion
fourth
amendment
principles
throughout
privacy
section
opinion
see
citing
miller
dionisio
katz
addressing
former
president
claim
act
tantamount
general
warrant
stanford
texas
concluding
challenged
law
analogous
wiretapping
provisions
title
iii
omnibus
crime
control
safe
streets
act
notwithstanding
lack
warrant
requirement
state
lower
federal
courts
offered
number
different
interpretations
whalen
nixon
years
many
courts
hold
disclosure
least
kinds
personal
information
subject
test
balances
government
interests
individual
interest
avoiding
disclosure
barry
new
york
fraternal
order
police
philadelphia
woodland
houston
per
curiam
crawford
state
russo
sixth
circuit
held
right
informational
privacy
protects
intrusions
upon
interests
deemed
fundamental
implicit
concept
ordered
liberty
desanti
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
circuit
expressed
grave
doubts
existence
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
american
federation
govt
employees
hud
opinions
concurring
judgment
disagree
approach
instead
provide
definitive
answer
question
whether
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
post
opinion
scalia
post
opinion
thomas
one
opinions
expresses
concern
failure
har
image
post
scalia
cause
practical
problems
post
sound
reasons
eschewing
concurring
opinions
recommended
course
premise
adversarial
system
appellate
courts
sit
boards
legal
inquiry
research
essentially
arbiters
legal
questions
presented
argued
parties
carducci
regan
cadc
opinion
scalia
case
petitioners
ask
us
hold
constitutional
right
informational
privacy
respondents
amici
thus
understandably
refrained
addressing
issue
detail
undesirable
us
decide
matter
importance
case
benefit
briefing
parties
potential
amici
little
notice
matter
might
decided
see
pet
cert
need
case
broad
decision
scope
right
privacy
certain
information
particularly
cases
like
one
scarce
guideposts
substantive
due
process
show
us
way
see
collins
harker
heights
repeatedly
recognized
benefits
proceeding
caution
herrera
collins
joined
scalia
assuming
sake
argument
capital
case
truly
persuasive
demonstration
made
conviction
render
execution
unconstitutional
cruzan
director
mo
dept
health
joined
scalia
assume
constitution
grant
competent
person
constitutionally
protected
right
refuse
lifesaving
hydration
nutrition
regents
univ
ewing
assum
ing
without
deciding
federal
courts
review
academic
decision
public
educational
institution
substantive
due
process
standard
board
curators
univ
mo
horowitz
see
also
new
york
state
club
city
new
york
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
joining
opinion
understanding
assumes
purposes
analysis
hold
existence
constitutional
right
private
association
expressive
religious
purposes
justice
scalia
provides
support
claim
approach
case
dramatically
increase
number
lawsuits
claiming
violations
right
informational
privacy
post
leave
lower
courts
sea
take
approach
took
three
decades
ago
whalen
nixon
evidence
decisions
caused
sky
fall
therefore
decide
case
us
leave
broader
issues
another
day
debate
act
house
representatives
contained
exchange
presidential
authority
conduct
background
checks
peters
power
conduct
proposed
investigations
candidates
civil
service
dawes
power
go
war
department
department
interior
see
pretty
much
nailed
doors
form
rules
regulations
cong
globe
brief
respondents
also
rely
fact
many
working
jpl
years
cal
tech
previously
vetted
standard
employment
reference
checks
brief
respondents
record
indicates
may
wrong
factual
matter
record
required
undergo
type
background
investigation
maintain
position
jpl
never
required
undergo
type
background
investigation
maintain
position
jpl
one
required
provide
name
social
security
number
current
address
facilitate
check
outstanding
warrants
arrests
convictions
similar
even
correct
fact
cal
tech
conducted
background
check
respondents
diminish
government
interests
conducting
standard
background
check
satisfy
contract
employees
granted
continued
access
government
facility
event
counsel
abandoned
position
oral
argument
tr
oral
arg
asking
treatment
counseling
also
help
government
identify
chronic
drug
abusers
despite
counseling
rehabilitation
programs
little
chance
effective
rehabilitation
fed
reg
oral
argument
however
acting
solicitor
general
explained
nasa
views
treatment
counseling
solely
mitigat
ing
factor
ameliorates
concerns
recent
illegal
drug
use
tr
oral
arg
gao
personal
information
data
breaches
frequent
evidence
resulting
identity
theft
limited
however
full
extent
unknown
gao
period
data
breaches
occurred
federal
agencies
respondents
contend
privacy
act
ability
deter
unauthorized
release
private
information
significantly
hampered
fact
statute
provides
ex
post
action
injunctive
relief
brief
respondents
citing
doe
chao
ginsburg
dissenting
nothing
whalen
nixon
suggests
private
right
action
money
damages
injunctive
relief
needed
order
provide
sufficient
protection
public
disclosure
footnotes
contrary
protestation
ante
failure
address
whether
right
informational
privacy
blamed
upon
government
concession
right
exists
indeed
government
startling
assertion
whalen
nixon
decided
nothing
constitutional
point
much
cited
later
opinions
seminal
seminal
decisions
reply
brief
petitioner
bound
litigant
concession
issue
law
see
grove
city
college
bell
thought
concession
entirely
act
sure
subjects
executive
branch
constitutional
limitations
collection
use
information
privacy
act
ed
supp
iii
already
contains
extensive
limitations
likely
surpassed
constitutional
improvisation
congress
power
fourteenth
amendment
extends
full
scope
due
process
clause
see
city
boerne
flores
incentive
give
clause
broad
reading
thus
expanding
scope
federal
legislation
justifies
federal
laws
state
disregard
informational
privacy
may
twinkle
solicitor
general
eye