Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-530.pdf
Page Number: 17

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

every  “employment  decision  became  a  constitutional  mat-
ter,”  the  Government  could  not  function.  See  Connick  v. 
Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 143 (1983); see also Bishop v. Wood, 
426 U. S. 341, 350 (1976) (“The Due Process Clause . . . is
not  a  guarantee  against  incorrect  or  ill-advised  personnel 
decisions”).

An assessment of the constitutionality of the challenged
portions  of  SF–85  and  Form  42  must  account  for  this
distinction.  The questions challenged by respondents are
part  of  a  standard  employment  background  check  of  the
sort  used  by  millions  of  private  employers.    See  Brief  for 
Consumer  Data  Indus.  Assn.  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  2 
(hereinafter  CDIA  Brief)  (“[M]ore  than  88%  of  U. S.
companies  . . .  perform  background  checks  on  their  em-
ployees”).  The  Government  itself  has  been  conducting 
employment  investigations  since  the  earliest  days  of  the
Republic.  L. White, The Federalists: A Study in Adminis-
trative History 262–263 (1948); see OPM, Biography of An
Ideal: History of the Federal Civil Service 8 (2002) (noting 
that  President  Washington  “set  a  high  standard”  for  fed-
eral  office  and  finalized  appointments  only  after  “investi-
gating  [candidates’]  capabilities  and  reputations”).    Since 
1871,  the  President  has  enjoyed  statutory  authority  to
“ascertain the fitness of applicants” for the civil service “as 
to  age,  health,  character,  knowledge  and  ability  for  the 
employment sought,” Act of Mar. 3, 1871, Rev. Stat. §1753,
as  amended,  5  U. S. C.  §3301(2),  and  that  Act  appears  to 
have  been  regarded  as  a  codification  of  established  prac-
tice.11  Standard background investigations similar to those 

—————— 

11 The  debate  on  the  1871  Act  in  the  House  of  Representatives  con-
tained  this  exchange  on  presidential  authority  to  conduct  background
checks: 
  “Mr. PETERS: Has he not that power [to conduct the proposed investi-
gations of candidates for the civil service] now? 
  “Mr.  DAWES:  He  has  all  that  power.    If  you  will  go  up  to  the  War
Department or the Department of the Interior you will see pretty much