Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-530.pdf
Page Number: 38

10 

NASA v. NELSON 

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment 

•	 The  Court  notes  that  a  “ ‘statutory  or  regulatory  duty
to  avoid  unwarranted  disclosures’  generally  allays
these privacy concerns,” ante, at 20 (emphasis added),
but it gives no indication of what the exceptions to this
general rule might be.  It then discusses the provisions
of  the  Privacy  Act  in  detail,  placing  considerable  em-
phasis  on  the  limitations  imposed  by  NASA’s  routine-
use  regulations.  Ante,  at  21–23.  From  the  length  of
the discussion, I would bet that the Privacy Act is nec-
essary to today’s holding, but how much of it is neces-
sary is a mystery. 

4.  It  will  dramatically  increase  the  number  of  lawsuits
claiming  violations  of  the  right  to  informational  privacy. 
Rare  will  be  the  claim  that  is  supported  by  none  of  the 
factors deemed relevant in today’s opinion.  Moreover, the 
utter  silliness  of  respondents’  position  in  this  case  leaves 
plenty  of  room  for  the  possible  success  of  future  claims
that  are  meritless,  but  slightly  less  absurd.    Respondents
claim  that  even  though  they  are  Government  contractor 
employees, and even though they are working with highly
expensive  scientific  equipment,  and  even  though  the  Gov-
ernment is seeking only information about drug treatment 
and  information  from  third  parties  that  is  standard  in
background  checks,  and  even  though  the  Government  is 
liable for damages if that information is ever revealed, and 
even  though  NASA’s  Privacy  Act  regulations  are  very
protective  of  private  information,  NASA’s  background 
In  carefully
checks  are  unconstitutional.    Ridiculous. 
citing all of these factors as the basis for its decision, the 
Court makes the distinguishing of this case simple as pie.

In  future  cases  filed  under  42  U. S. C.  §1983  in  those
circuits that recognize (rather than merely hypothesize) a
constitutional  right  to  “informational  privacy,”  lawyers
will  always  (and  I  mean  always)  find  some  way  around 
today’s opinion: perhaps the plaintiff will be a receptionist