Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-530.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

12 

NASA v. NELSON 

Opinion of the Court 

that,  whatever  the  scope  of  this  interest,  it  does  not  pre-
vent the Government from asking reasonable questions of 
the  sort  included  on  SF–85  and  Form  42  in  an  employ-
ment  background  investigation  that  is  subject  to  the  Pri-
vacy Act’s safeguards against public disclosure. 

A 
1 

As an initial matter, judicial review of the Government’s 
challenged inquiries must take into account the context in
which  they  arise.  When  the  Government  asks  respon-
dents and their references to fill out SF–85 and Form 42, 
it  does  not  exercise  its  sovereign  power  “to  regulate  or
license.”  Cafeteria  &  Restaurant  Workers  v.  McElroy,  367 
U. S.  886,  896  (1961).    Rather,  the  Government  conducts 
the  challenged  background  checks  in  its  capacity  “as  pro-
prietor”  and  manager  of  its  “internal  operation.”    Ibid. 
Time  and  again  our  cases  have  recognized  that  the  Gov-
ernment  has  a  much  freer  hand  in  dealing  “with  citizen
employees than it does when it brings its sovereign power
to bear on citizens at large.”  Engquist v.  Oregon Dept. of 
Agriculture, 553 U. S. 591, 598 (2008); Waters v. Churchill, 
511 U. S. 661, 674 (1994) (plurality opinion).  This distinc-
tion is grounded on the “common-sense realization” that if 
—————— 

92  (1978)  (same);  see  also  New  York  State  Club  Assn.,  Inc.  v.  City  of 
New  York,  487  U. S.  1,  20  (1988)  (SCALIA,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and 
concurring in judgment) (joining the Court’s opinion on the understand-
ing that it “assumes for purposes of its analysis, but does not hold, the
existence  of  a constitutional  right  of  private  association  for  other  than
expressive or religious purposes”). 
  Justice SCALIA provides no support for his claim that our approach in
this  case  will  “dramatically  increase  the  number  of  lawsuits  claiming 
violations  of  the  right  to  informational  privacy,”  post,  at  9,  and  will 
leave the lower courts at sea.  We take the same approach here that the 
Court  took  more  than  three  decades  ago  in  Whalen  and  Nixon,  and 
there is no evidence that those decisions have caused the sky to fall.

We  therefore  decide  the  case  before  us  and  leave  broader  issues  for 

another day.