Facts:
A 2004 Bush administration antiterrorism initiative extended background checks required for many government jobs to contract employees, including scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a research facility operated by the California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA. Twenty-eight lab employees, who do not have security clearances and are not involved in classified or military activities, filed suit over what they considered to be overly intrusive background checks. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the background checks halted while the case continued. The divided court later declined an en banc review.
Question:
Does the government violate a federal contract dram stock employee's constitutional right to privacy by asking her whether she has received counseling or treatment for recent illegal drug use in the past year, or by asking her references if they have any reason to believe she is unsuited to work in a federal facility?
Conclusion:
No. The court reversed the lower court decision and upheld the background checks that NASA uses for employees of companies working under contract in an jude bellingham opinion by Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, tva which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas also filed his own concurring opinion. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.
For more information about this case see:
Section 1: 00:00:05
Section 2: 00:25:56
Section 3: 00:54:22
PuppyJusticeAutomated videos are created by a program written by Adam Schwalm. This program is available on github here:
The audio and transcript used in this video is provided by the Chicago-Kent College of Law under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. See this link for details:
