Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-530.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

NASA v. NELSON 

Syllabus 

terests  at  stake,  SF–85  and  Form  42  are  also  subject  to  substantial
protections  against  disclosure  to  the  public.    Whalen  and  Nixon  rec-
ognized  that  a  “statutory  or  regulatory  duty  to  avoid  unwarranted
disclosures” generally allays privacy concerns created by government
“accumulation”  of  “personal  information”  for  “public  purposes.” 
Whalen,  supra,  at  605.    Respondents  attack  only  the  Government’s 
collection  of  information,  and  here,  as  in  Whalen  and  Nixon,  the  in-
formation  collected  is  shielded  by  statute  from  unwarranted  disclo-
sure.  The  Privacy  Act—which  allows  the  Government  to  maintain
only those records “relevant and necessary to accomplish” a purpose 
authorized by law, 5 U. S. C. §552a(e)(1); requires written consent be-
fore  the  Government  may  disclose  an  individual’s  records,  §552a(b);
and  imposes  criminal  liability  for  willful  violations  of  its  nondisclo-
sure obligations, §552a(i)(1)—“evidence[s] a proper concern” for indi-
vidual  privacy.  Whalen,  supra,  at  605;  Nixon,  supra,  at  458–459. 
Respondents’ claim that the statutory exceptions to the Privacy Act’s 
disclosure bar, see §§552a(b)(1)–(12), leave its protections too porous
to supply a meaningful check against unwarranted disclosures.  But 
that  argument  rests  on  an  incorrect  reading  of  Whalen,  Nixon,  and 
the Privacy Act.  Pp. 19–23. 

530 F. 3d 865, reversed and remanded. 

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.  SCALIA, 
J.,  filed  an  opinion  concurring  in  the  judgment,  in  which  THOMAS, J., 
joined.  THOMAS, J.,  filed  an  opinion  concurring  in  the  judgment.    KA-
GAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.