Nixon v. Administrator of General Services

4 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Is there a “Constitutional Right to Informational Privacy”?

    Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLPJennifer CanfieldJuly 20, 2015

    While the plaintiffs in the first OPM data breach lawsuit, briefly discussed here, alleged violations of the Privacy Act, NTEU took a different tack and claims the data breach is a violation of the “constitutional right to informational privacy, including their right to Due Process under the Fifth Amendment[.]”But does a “constitutional right to informational privacy” even exist? The alleged right stems from NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134 (2009), Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) and Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). In NASA, federal contractors alleged a violation of the constitutional right to informational privacy, challenging the government’s right to collect certain background data (including data from forms NTEU alleges were hacked).

  2. No privacy violation in NASA employment background checks

    Bergstein & Ullrich, LLPFebruary 15, 2011

    The agency can also seek your personal information from schools, employers and others during the investigation. Justice Alito explains that the Supreme Court has never flat-out recognized a right to informational privacy, though the Court has hinted at it over the years in cases like Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), and Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), two cases decided by a very different, moderate Supreme Court. What the current Court would do on a clean slate is anyone's guess, but since the government has a strong interest in checking out the backgrounds of potential employees, any such privacy right gives way to the government's need to "ensur[e] the security of its facilities and in employing a competent, reliable workforce."

  3. Employees’ Informational Privacy Rights — Supreme Court Decides NASA v. Nelson

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPJanuary 31, 2011

    The DecisionThe Court began with a discussion of the origin of the right to informational privacy. Two 1977 cases, Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), and Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), referred to a privacy “interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters,” Whalen, and a constitutional “interest in avoiding disclosure,” Nixon. The Court noted that since 1977, “the Court has said little else on the subject of an ‘individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters,’” and that “no other decision has squarely addressed a constitutional right to informational privacy.”

  4. U.S. Supreme Court Upholds NASA Background Checks

    Foley Hoag LLPColin ZickJanuary 19, 2011

    NASA owns JPL, but Cal Tech operates the facility under a government contract.The Supreme Court acknowledge that “[i]n two cases decided more than 30 years ago, this Court referred broadly to a constitutional privacy “interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Whalen v. Roe , 429 U. S. 589, 599–600 (1977); Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 457 (1977).” The employees in this case, as federal contract employees working at a Government laboratory, claimed that two parts of a standard JPL employment background investigation violate their rights under Whalen and Nixon.