Washington ( CNN ) -- The Supreme Court has again rejected broad privacy rights for some government workers . A unanimous bench on Wednesday affirmed the government 's right to conduct personal background checks on current and prospective employees under federal contract , especially those in sensitive or high-security workplaces . The ruling rejected a lawsuit by 28 long-term scientists , engineers , and others at NASA 's Jet Propulsion Laboratory near Pasadena , California . The workers , who are independent contractors , claim the mandatory checks are overly intrusive -- permitting the government to obtain information on their health , finances , personal habits , and even their sex lives . All were classified as `` low risk , '' unlikely to have a major `` adverse impact '' on the agency 's mission . The forms required of workers `` consist of reasonable , employment-related inquiries that further the government 's interests in managing its internal operations , '' said Justice Samuel Alito for the 8-0 court . Justice Elena Kagan did not participate , since she briefed the case last year as the government 's solicitor general , before being nominated to the court by President Obama . At issue was whether there is a constitutional right to `` informational privacy , '' free from overly intrusive state scrutiny . The high court 33 years ago suggested such a right existed , but the concept has rarely been tested since . The latest dispute comes amid a general increase in security concerns in the wake of the September 11 , 2001 , terrorist attacks . The plaintiffs in the case argued they are not federal employees , but work at the California Institute of Technology , a private university that operates the JPL for the space agency . They claim they are low-risk workers whose work is in the private domain , and that the university already conducted background checks when they were first hired . Nevertheless , they were required to submit information to NASA , allowing the facility to maintain its broader security clearance as a government contractor . In a 2004 presidential directive , NASA and all federal agencies were ordered to increase their security measures . All civil servants and contractors are now issued special ID badges and cards after first undergoing fingerprint checks and thorough screenings of their professional and personal lives . Investigators are permitted to read criminal , financial and medical records , and to speak with friends , family , and neighbors of the workers . All federal employees and applicants are subject to such background checks , and the government says that applies to contractors as well . After some JPL workers complained , the lab posted a `` suitability matrix '' on its Web site , listing criteria it believed NASA would consider when deciding suitability for future and continued employment . Such factors , the lawsuit noted , included `` carnal knowledge , sodomy , indecent exposure , voyeurism , obscene telephone calls , indecent proposals , incest , bestiality , homosexuality , cohabitation , adultery , illegitimate children , and mental , emotional , psychological , or psychiatric issues . '' During oral arguments last October , Alito had , along with some of his colleagues , expressed some concern about the government 's assertions . `` Is there any limit ? '' he asked . `` Suppose the government says : 'Well , we want to know all about your diet . We want to know whether you smoke cigarettes . We want to know everything you read . We want to know what your hobbies are , what forms of entertainment you enjoy , sexual practices , every aspect of your private life , just because that gives us a better picture of who you are as an employee . ' Is that OK ? '' The Justice Department 's lawyer , Neal Katyal , said at the time there are limits , but added the government should have wide discretion to determine specific areas of inquiry , with appropriate safeguards . Alito in his 23-page opinion agreed . `` We reject the argument the government , when it requests job-related personal information in an employment background check , has a constitutional burden to demonstrate its questions are 'necessary ' or the least restrictive means of furthering its interests , '' he wrote . Last term , the high court ruled that a government worker did not enjoy a `` reasonable expectation '' of privacy on his official wireless two-way text-messaging pager . A California police officer had sued after authorities reviewed his phone records because of what they believed was excessive use of the pager device on the job . The review found hundreds of personal messages , some of a `` sexually . explicit '' nature , to his wife , a girlfriend and a fellow officer . The officer then sued for invasion of privacy , but lost at the high court . Private employees generally have less workplace privacy than do government workers . The JPL case raised the question of rights enjoyed in the quasi-official world of government contractors . In the JPL dispute , workers who refused to allow the background checks could be fired . The government told the high court that anyone receiving a government employment check should expect a security check . Justice Department lawyers warned that a ruling against the government would jeopardize its ability to obtain necessary information from contractors and regular government staff members . The case is National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson ( 09-530 ) .
The high court affirms personal background checks by the government . The ruling applies to current and prospective employees under government contract . The lawsuit was filed by scientists , engineers and others at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory .