Court considers NASA employee checks

The high court during arguments in a case about NASA background checks of scientists in California considered what questions could be asked without violating their constitutional privacy rights.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito asked the Obama administration attorney whether any limit existed on the questions that can be asked. They cited questions about sexual practices, genetic tests, medical conditions and even about what a person reads.

Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal defended the background investigations and described them as standard for federal employees since 1953 and for contractors since 2005.

He said NASA facilities have sensitive information and technology and contractors with credentials can get near the space shuttle. So the questions are justified in part on national security grounds.

He said adequate privacy safeguards existed under law to prevent the improper disclosure of the information.

Of 74,000 contractors over the past five years, government credentials have been denied only 128 times, Katyal said, adding that information in those cases was kept private between the government and the individual.

The case involved a legal challenge by a group of 28 scientists, engineers and administrative personnel to the background checks required at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.

The laboratory, owned by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and operated by the California Institute of Technology, is known for developing satellites, rockets, spacecraft and telescopes.

All positions at the laboratory are filled by contract employees. Employees who do not agree to the checks could lose their jobs.

Dan Stormer, an attorney for the employees, said the government must justify the reasons for the questions. He questioned how far the the government can go in intruding into a worker’s personal life.

But several justices seemed sympathetic to the government’s argument that it should be able to at least ask open-ended questions about whether a person has any adverse information on why a worker should not be hired.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said a private employer could be sued for failing to ask that question and added that it was routinely asked in the hiring of law clerks.

Justice Stephen Breyer asked whether a person has a right to control all personal information without government intrusion, questioning whether it extended to information for a driver’s license or comments made as part of a reference.

A decision in the case is expected early next year.