Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-530.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

NASA v. NELSON 

Opinion of the Court 

2 
With these interests in view, we conclude that the chal-
lenged  portions  of  both  SF–85  and  Form  42  consist  of 
reasonable, employment-related inquiries that further the 
Government’s  interests  in  managing  its  internal  opera-
tions.  See  Engquist,  553  U. S.,  at  598–599;  Whalen,  429 
U. S., at 597–598.  As to SF–85, the only part of the form
challenged  here  is  its  request  for  information  about  “any 
treatment  or  counseling  received”  for  illegal-drug  use 
within  the  previous  year.    The  “treatment  or  counseling”
question,  however,  must  be  considered  in  context.    It  is  a 
followup to SF–85’s inquiry into whether the employee has
“used, possessed, supplied, or manufactured illegal drugs” 
during the past year.  The Government has good reason to
ask  employees  about  their  recent  illegal-drug  use.  Like 
any  employer,  the  Government  is  entitled  to  have  its
projects  staffed  by  reliable,  law-abiding  persons  who  will
“ ‘efficiently  and  effectively’ ”  discharge  their  duties.    See 
Engquist, supra, at 598–599.  Questions about illegal-drug 
use  are  a  useful  way  of  figuring  out  which  persons  have
these  characteristics.  See,  e.g.,  Breen  &  Matusitz,  An 
Updated Examination of the Effects of Illegal Drug Use in 
the Workplace, 19 J. Human Behavior in the Social Envi-
ronment, 434 (2009) (illicit drug use negatively correlated 
with workplace productivity). 

In  context,  the  follow-up  question  on  “treatment  or
counseling” for recent illegal-drug use is also a reasonable, 
employment-related  inquiry.    The  Government,  recogniz-
ing that illegal-drug use is both a criminal and a medical 
issue,  seeks  to  separate  out  those  illegal-drug  users  who
are  taking  steps  to  address  and  overcome  their  problems. 
The Government thus uses responses to the “treatment or
counseling” question as a mitigating factor in determining 
whether  to  grant  contract  employees  long-term  access  to