Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-530.pdf
Page Number: 21

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

federal facilities.13 

This  is  a  reasonable,  and  indeed  a  humane,  approach,
and  respondents  do  not  dispute  the  legitimacy  of  the
Government’s decision to use drug treatment as a mitigat-
ing  factor  in  its  contractor  credentialing  decisions.    Re-
spondents’  argument  is  that,  if  drug  treatment  is  only 
used to mitigate, then the Government should change the
mandatory  phrasing  of  SF–85—“Include  [in  your  answer] 
any  treatment  or  counseling  received”—so  as  to  make  a
response  optional.    App.  94.  As  it  stands,  the  mandatory 
“treatment  or  counseling”  question  is  unconstitutional,  in 
respondents’  view,  because  it  is  “more  intrusive  than 
necessary to satisfy the government’s objective.”  Brief for 
Respondents  26;  530  F. 3d,  at  879  (holding  that  “treat-
ment  or  counseling”  question  should  be  enjoined  because 
the form “appears to compel disclosure”).

We  reject  the  argument  that  the  Government,  when  it
requests  job-related  personal  information  in  an  employ-
ment  background  check,  has  a  constitutional  burden  to 
demonstrate that its questions are “necessary” or the least
restrictive means of furthering its interests.  So exacting a 
standard  runs  directly  contrary  to  Whalen.  The  patients
in Whalen,  much like respondents here, argued that New
York’s  statute  was  unconstitutional  because  the  State 
could not “demonstrate the necessity” of its program.  429 
U. S.,  at  596.    The  Court  quickly  rejected  that  argument,
concluding that New York’s collection of patients’ prescrip-
tion  information  could  “not  be  held  unconstitutional  sim-
ply because” a court viewed it as “unnecessary, in whole or 

—————— 

13 Asking  about  treatment  or  counseling  could  also  help  the  Govern-
ment  identify  chronic  drug  abusers  for  whom,  “despite  counseling  and 
rehabilitation  programs,  there  is  little  chance  for  effective  rehabilita-
tion.”    38  Fed.  Reg.  33315  (1973).    At  oral  argument,  however,  the 
Acting  Solicitor  General  explained  that  NASA  views  treatment  or 
counseling  solely  as  a  “mitigat[ing]”  factor  that  ameliorates  concerns
about recent illegal drug use.  Tr. of Oral Arg. 19.