Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-530.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

14 

NASA v. NELSON 

Opinion of the Court 

at issue here became mandatory for all candidates for the 
federal  civil  service  in  1953.    Exec.  Order  No. 10450,  3 
CFR 936.  And the particular investigations challenged in
this case arose from a decision to extend that requirement
to federal contract employees requiring long-term access to
federal facilities.  See HSPD–12,  at 1765, App. 127; FIPS 
PUB 201–1, at iii–vi, 1–8, App. 131–150. 

As  this  long  history  suggests,  the  Government  has  an
interest  in  conducting  basic  employment  background 
checks.  Reasonable  investigations  of  applicants  and  em-
ployees aid the Government in ensuring the security of its
facilities  and  in  employing  a  competent,  reliable  work-
force.  See Engquist, supra, at 598–599.  Courts must keep 
those  interests  in  mind  when  asked  to  go  line-by-line 
through  the  Government’s  employment  forms  and  to 
scrutinize  the  choice  and  wording  of  the  questions  they 
contain. 

Respondents  argue  that,  because  they  are  contract
employees and not civil servants, the Government’s broad 
authority in managing its affairs should apply with dimin-
ished force.  But the Government’s interest as “proprietor”
in managing its operations, Cafeteria & Restaurant Work-
ers, supra, at 896, does not turn on such formalities.  See 
Board  of  Comm’rs,  Wabaunsee  Cty.  v.  Umbehr,  518  U. S. 
668,  678,  679  (1996)  (formal  distinctions  such  as  whether 
a  “service  provider”  has  a  “contract  of  employment  or  a 
contract for services” with the government is a “very poor
proxy” for constitutional interests at stake).  The fact that 
respondents’  direct  employment  relationship  is  with  Cal
Tech—which  operates  JPL  under  a  Government  con-
tract—says very little  about the interests at  stake in this 
case.  The record shows that, as a “practical matter,” there 
are  no  “[r]elevant  distinctions”  between  the  duties  per-

—————— 

all of this nailed up on the doors, in the form of rules and regulations.” 

Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 3d Sess., 1935 (1871).