Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-530.pdf
Page Number: 19

Cite as:  562 U. S. ____ (2011) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

formed  by  NASA’s  civil-service  workforce  and  its  contrac-
tor  workforce.  App.  221.  The  two  classes  of  employees 
perform “functionally equivalent duties,” and the extent of 
employees’  “access  to  NASA  . . .  facilities”  turns  not  on 
formal status but on the nature of “the jobs they perform.” 
Ibid. 

At JPL, in particular, the work that contract employees 
perform is critical to NASA’s mission.  Respondents in this
case  include  “the  lead  trouble-shooter  for  . . .  th[e]  $568 
[million]”  Kepler  space  observatory,  7  Record  396;  the 
leader  of  the  program  that  “tests  . . .  all  new  technology
that NASA will use in space,” App. 60; and one of the lead
“trajectory  designers  for  . . .  the  Galileo  Project  and  the 
Apollo Moon landings,” id., at 62.  This is important work,
and all of it is funded with a multibillion dollar investment 
from  the  American  taxpayer.    See  NASA,  Jet  Propulsion 
Laboratory  Annual  Report  09,  p. 35  (2010),  online  at
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/annualreport/2009-report.pdf.    The 
Government  has  a  strong  interest  in  conducting  basic
background  checks  into  the  contract  employees  minding
the store at JPL.12 

—————— 

12 In their brief, respondents also rely on the fact that many of them 
have  been  working  at  JPL  for  years  and  that  Cal  Tech  previously
vetted  them  through  standard  “employment  reference  checks.”    Brief 
for Respondents 52–53.  The record indicates that this may be wrong as 
a  factual  matter.  E.g.,  7  Record  391  (“I  have  not  been  required  to
undergo any type of background investigation to maintain my position 
with JPL”); id., at 397 (“I have never been required to undergo any type
of  background  investigation  to  maintain  my  position  with  JPL  other
than  . . .  [one]  which  required  that  I  provide  my  name,  social  security
number,  and  current  address”  to  facilitate  a  “check  for  outstanding
warrants,  arrests,  or  convictions”);  id.,  at  356,  367,  386–387  (similar). 
Even  if  it  were  correct,  the  fact  that  Cal  Tech  once  conducted  a  back-
ground  check  on  respondents  does  not  diminish  the  Government’s 
interests  in  conducting  its  own  standard  background  check  to  satisfy 
itself that contract employees should be granted continued access to the 
Government’s facility.  In any event, counsel abandoned this position at 
oral argument.  Tr. of Oral Arg. 38.