Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-530.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

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

3 

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment 

(SCALIA, J., concurring).  Respondents make no claim that 
the  State  has  deprived  them  of  liberty  without  the  requi-
site  procedures,  and  their  due  process  claim  therefore 
must  fail.  Even  under  the  formula  we  have  adopted  for 
identifying  liberties  entitled  to  protection  under  the  faux
“substantive” component of the Due Process Clause—that
“the  Due  Process  Clause  specially  protects  those  funda-
mental  rights  and  liberties  which  are,  objectively,  deeply 
rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Washington 
v.  Glucksberg,  521  U. S.  702,  720–721  (1997)  (internal 
quotation  marks  omitted)—respondents’  claim  would  fail.
Respondents do not even attempt  to argue  that the  claim
at issue in this case passes that test, perhaps recognizing 
the  farcical  nature  of  a  contention  that  a  right  deeply
rooted  in  our  history  and  tradition  bars  the  Government
from  ensuring  that  the  Hubble  Telescope  is  not  used  by 
recovering drug addicts. 

The  absurdity  of  respondents’  position  in  this  case 
should  not,  however,  obscure  the  broader  point:  Our  due 
process  precedents,  even  our  “substantive  due  process” 
precedents,  do  not  support  any  right  to  informational
privacy.  First, we have held that the government’s act of 
defamation  does  not  deprive  a  person  “of  any  ‘liberty’ 
protected by the procedural guarantees of the Fourteenth 
Amendment.”  Paul  v.  Davis,  424  U. S.  693,  709  (1976).
We  reasoned  that  stigma,  standing  alone,  does  not  “sig-
nificantly alte[r]” a person’s legal status so as to “justif[y] 
the invocation of procedural safeguards.”  Id., at 708–709. 
If outright defamation does not qualify, it is unimaginable 
that the mere disclosure of private information does.

Second,  respondents  challenge  the  Government’s collec-
tion  of  their  private  information.    But  the  Government’s 
collection of private information is regulated by the Fourth 
Amendment,  and  “[w]here  a  particular  Amendment  pro-
vides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection
against  a  particular  sort  of  government  behavior,  that