The segment starts at 8:30 minute mark.

Employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory got an ultimatum last year: Submit to new, more thorough background investigations or leave the agency. Twenty-eight JPL scientists, engineers and administrative support employees instead took their employers to court.

The plaintiffs and some observers say the ensuing legal battle has raised questions about the federal government's background investigation methods and the constitutionality of the trigger event: Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12. The process also exposed the agency's laundry list of workforce problems...

During the hearing Congressman Adam Schiff asked Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator, why NASA interpreted the directive differently than other agencies, and asked for more extensive background checks.

"We are not trying to impose any requirements beyond what we believe the law requires for HSPD-12," Griffin answered. None of the employees that brought the lawsuit are in a classified or "sensitive" position at JPL.

"....Frankly, there are people at the Energy Department that are working on sensitive national security issues that are of equal significance than, I think, being down at JPL," Schiff countered.

The idea to bring a suit against NASA was not the first thing that came to the employees' minds, Nelson said. The first was to question the JPL and Caltech managers and NASA Administrator Michael Griffin when he visited the campus shortly after the background checks were announced.

"When we asked [Griffin] about the checks he said 'If you don't like it I hope you like working somewhere else," Nelson said. "He was really our best recruiter."

On Feb. 15 Jet Propulsion Laboratory employees will be back in district court concerning their lawsuit against NASA.
...the circuit court decision included Caltech. "Caltech is out, by the district court ruling however we are going to appeal that decision," [Keeny, attorney for the JPL employees] said.

"...I would be shocked if the Government did not take it to a higher court..."
"...If the Government seeks review in the Supreme Court, it will probably get accepted, and that's probably where we'll end up".

...as the price of keeping their jobs, many of America's finest space scientists were being asked to give the feds virtually blanket permission to snoop and spy and collect even malicious gossip about them from God knows who.

As custodians of a great human adventure, the men and women of JPL deserve better from their own country than to be victimized by a shabby crowd of apprentice Torquemadas. By resisting this bargain-basement inquisition, JPL plaintiffs have rendered us all yet another service. Who would have guessed that the folks with the pocket protectors would turn out to be the ones with the right stuff?

Scientists and engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) have won a temporary reprieve from a new rule mandating extensive background checks of all government employees and contractors. Last week, a federal judge in Los Angeles abided by an order from an appellate court and allowed the 28 employees to continue working at the Pasadena, California, facility without giving the government permission to investigate their personal histories. NASA officials said the new checks, which went into effect this fall, are needed to improve lab security. But the appellate court said that the employees, who sued NASA and JPL in August, were facing "a stark choice: either violation of their constitutional rights or loss of their jobs." The case will now go to trial. "We were subjected to a lot of pressure from JPL, and we are glad to have survived," says planetary scientist Robert Nelson, one of the plaintiffs.

Form 42, which the government uses to query employees' references, "seeks highly personal information using an open-ended questioning technique, including asking for 'any adverse information' or 'additional information which . . . may have a bearing on this person's suitability for government employment,' " Wardlaw wrote. "Any harm that results from Form 42's dissemination and the information consequently provided to the government will be concrete and immediate."

That harm, Wardlaw continued, was compounded by the fact that Caltech's rule made the background checks a mandatory condition of employment. She rebuked the lower court for suggesting that the harm to JPL employees was minimal.

A group of scientists working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory won a round in federal court on Friday in their challenge to a Bush administration requirement that they submit to extensive background checks or face losing their jobs.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in California, issued an opinion allowing the scientists to continue working until the question of their privacy challenge can be addressed at a full trial.

Michael Cabbage, a spokesman for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, said, "NASA will, of course, comply with any rulings from the court of appeals."

The three-judge panel has decided that the investigations threaten the constitutional rights of workers, is not grounded in law, and is not narrowly tailored to a legitimate need.

"We're ecstatic," workers' attorney Dan Stormer said. "This represents a vindication of constitutional protections that all of us are entitled to. It prevents the government from conducting needless searches into backgrounds."

A federal appeals court barred the Bush administration Friday from looking into the personal lives of NASA scientists and engineers who have no access to classified information, saying the probes are intrusive and unrelated to national security.

Their lawyer Dan Stormer said the ruling also applies to workers at NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View and other NASA operations in the nine Western states covered by the Ninth Circuit.

A federal judge Friday barred NASA from requiring background checks for any of its low-security Jet Propulsion Laboratory employees until the courts resolve whether the checks constitute an invasion of privacy.

Wright's ruling Friday ensures that the injunction will apply to all of JPL's nearly 5,000 low-security employees, not just those who filed the lawsuit.

During the hearing, Department of Justice lawyer Vesper Mei also suggested the government might request an "en banc" review of the the Court of Appeals' ruling, in which a panel of 15 Ninth Circuit judges would reconsider the case.

More than once, though, Wright stated his hope that the parties could solve their dispute outside the courthouse. "I don't like the idea that these claims are going to be litigated. I want these claims to be negotiated," he said. Then, after a pause, he added: "I also wanted a bicycle for Christmas ..."

A federal judge blocked the government Friday from conducting background checks of low-risk employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory after an appeals court said the investigations threaten the constitutional rights of workers.

U.S. District Judge Otis Wright issued the injunction after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his earlier ruling and issued a sharp rebuke to the judge.

Veronica McGregor, a spokeswoman for Caltech and JPL, said Friday afternoon, "We are going to abide by any decisions made by the court."

A federal appellate court ruled on Friday that scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) will not have to undergo federal background checks until a judge rules on their constitutionality.

JPL spokeswoman Veronica McGregor noted that although JPL and CalTech were dismissed as defendants by Wright, "We intend to abide by the (appellate) courts' decisions in this matter".

Dan Stormer, an attorney for the JPL employees, hailed the court 's decision. "It is a complete victory for us," he said. ``We couldn't be happier."

The hearing on the motion to dismiss the case comes as a temporary injunction allowing the employees to avoid the background checks remains in place.

The U.S. District Court judge presiding over the case originally denied the injunction, saying that the employees were required only to sign an authorization form that would not cause harm to them. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Dec. 5, 2007, that there was sufficient cursory evidence to show possible privacy concerns and temporarily granted an injunction.

"We had oral argument with the Ninth Circuit Court," said Virginia Keeny, attorney for the JPL employees. "They did not offer an opinion." ...Keeny added she was not certain when the panel of three judges would hand down an opinion but that it might be in the new year."

"Employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, are suing to prevent background checks the government is conducting before issuing HSPD-12 cards. Those checks are on hold right now, but checks are moving forward at other NASA field centers. Keith Cowing is a former NASA scientist and the host of www.nasawatch.com. He says NASA employees at other centers are just as unhappy about the checks as those at the JPL." (Local copy of the radio interview).

NASA is going forward with what some are calling "invasive" background checks at all but one of its field centers despite ongoing litigation to end the process at that facility, NASA officials said Thursday.

"A Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel yesterday appeared to be leaning in favor of enjoining, at least temporarily, a program of background checks that scientists at Jet Propulsion Laboratory have challenged as overly intrusive.
"You're doing a good job, " Senior Judge David Thompson commented as Virginia Keeny argued that her clients' constitutional rights of privacy were being violated. "Keep it up."

"The panel, consisting of Wardlaw, Thompson, and U.S. District Judge Edward Reed on Nevada, sitting by designation, gave no indication as to when it would it rule. The case is Nelson v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 07-56424."

"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges posed sharp questions to the government lawyer about the necessity of the background checks, which include questions about drug use and drug treatment, as well as an open-ended waiver releasing personal information."

Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich marks visit with strong words on intrusive JPL background checks.

"This is fundamentally wrong. I want everyone at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to know that not only as president but as a member of Congress I'm going to work to expose this and overturn it. I think what [the government is] doing is unconstitutional. They're violating people's rights to privacy..."

"A federal judge said he planned to temporarily bar NASA from asking workers at one of its research centers during background checks whether they had ever used drugs. The drug use question was only a small part of a lawsuit filed by 28 scientists, engineers and staff at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena who claimed the new security measures invaded their privacy."

Scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California are so irritated by a new requirement for intrusive background checks that they're filing suit. Good for them. Six years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the nation won't be safer if it begins inspecting every detail of the lives of its key workers.

"The government needs dedicated, talented people -- particularly now. Feds are already underpaid and underappreciated. On top of that, NASA has employees with unique skills that cannot be easily replaced. To subject them to another mandate and say, 'Take it or leave it,' seems shortsighted and unnecessarily draconian."

"Both local members of Congress, Adam Schiff and David Dreier, have expressed concern about the issue. 'Congressman Dreier shares their concerns regarding personal privacy,' said Alisa Do, Dreier's legislative director. Schiff said, 'We must be vigilant to ensure that whatever personal information is obtained from those who work at our science centers is necessary to maintain security and used for only that purpose.'"

"'This is something straight out of the 1950's McCarthy era,' says Dennis Byrnes, JPL chief engineer for flight dynamics. NASA officials say the checks, standard procedure for all government employees for decades, are simply being extended to contractors in a post-9/11 world."

"[David Mould, NASA assistant administrator for public affairs,] said that there was not a recent security breech or any concerns about scientists at JPL to prompt this action, that the agency is just complying with the government's policy. However the directive does have flexibility with each agency deciding how the background checks are administrated."

"U.S. lawmakers are slamming new rules requiring background checks for federal employees, which have provoked a lawsuit from NASA scientists. [...] 'We must make sure that any intrusion into the privacy of those who work at JPL -- or any other lab -- is narrowly tailored to meet the government's security interest and goes no further,' Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told United Press International. 'Otherwise, we will discourage the nation's best and brightest from joining the workforce.' [...] 'I am not satisfied that it has been done here. The broad privacy waivers that are being required of scientists working on non-sensitive matters must be re-examined and if not justified, must be reined back.'"

"A group of cheesed-off American space boffins are resisting new security procedures, implemented in the wake of 9/11, which require them to submit to background checks."

This blog informs readers of the HSPD-12 controversy at JPL.

"[Congressman] Holt, who wrote to Gutierrez on May 21, said on Tuesday, 'I'm still not aware of any justification for this invasive and distrustful method. There seems to be no rationale for [it].'"

"The suit says the checks violate employees' Constitutional rights by asking all employees, from janitors to visiting professors to grant permission for the government to investigate everything from financial records to medical records to sex lives - or lose their jobs."

"Our clients are exemplary employees who have spent their work lives bettering this country. This attack on their right to privacy will not be tolerated," said Dan Stormer of the Hadsell & Stormer law firm in Pasadena. The class action lawsuit seeks a court order that would prevent JPL, in La Cañada Flintridge, and NASA from imposing the new security background requirements. A hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Sept. 24."

"Employees must not only provide their fingerprints, which are required for the biometric access and control system and shall be stored on RFID chips, but also sign documents before September 28, which give investigators carte blanche to spy out their private backgrounds in detail."

"The suit is structured so that it can become a class action suit. Could this just be the tip of the iceberg?" The story is mostly a summary of the AP story

"'They're being required to give up every personal record they have," [attorney Dan Stormer] said. 'It's just a despicable incursion into constitutionally protected rights.' The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction against implementing the background checks."

This is a report on filing of suit to stop JPL rebadging process. The article is essentially correct, but incorrectly states that those refusing will be "unable to work in an office that deals with sensitive work." Actually, all of the plaintiffs (and 98% of JPL employees) work in non-sensitive areas, but they are still being told they must comply or lose their jobs.

"NASA has persisted in calling its invasive background check for 'rebadging' a 'voluntary' procedure and 'standard.' It isn't. JPL employees have been told by upper management and by HR and security representatives that anyone who doesn't comply, in full, and fill out the Office of Procurement Management forms completely, or who does not sign a blanket waiver of his or her privacy rights in perpetuity for the information demanded 'will be assumed to have filed a resignation.' And none of the other agencies are doing it. It's not standard."

"The scientists must submit to 'an open-ended background investigation' and a determination of their suitability for their jobs based on 'wrong-headed and/or dangerously vague criteria such as sexual orientation,' they said yesterday in a complaint in Los Angeles federal court."

A former employee of the Department of Homeland Security, identifying himself only as "Pat," states that Susan Foster probably is a criminal who has a "growing operation in her basement." Pat doesn't seem to let the truth get in the way of his opinions. For example, the "stupid hippies who managed to work at CalTech as JPL contractors" are actually NASA scientists and engineers who are driving the Mars rovers, analyzing black holes, and navigating the Cassini spacecraft to Saturn, and the Apollo missions to the Moon.

Local TV News coverage of press conference announcing lawsuit.

Local TV News coverage of press conference announcing lawsuit.

Zareh Gorjian [...] develops animation and other presentations related to space missions and has worked at the laboratory for 17 years. 'I was at J.P.L. during the cold war when we were fighting the Soviet Union, which had the power not only to end all life in the U.S. but the entire planet. We were able to defeat them without resorting to such intrusive tactics.'"

"Longtime JPL scientists, many of whom do not work on classified materials, including rover drivers and Apollo veterans, sued NASA, Caltech, and the Department of Commerce today to fight highly invasive background checks, which include financial information, any and all retail business transactions, and even sexual orientation."

"The lawsuit says NASA is violating the Constitution by calling on employees, from janitors to visiting professors, to permit investigators to delve into medical, financial and past employment records, and to question friends and acquaintances about everything from their finances to sex lives. Those who refuse could lose their jobs, the suit says."

"'By joining with my colleagues and (law firm) Hadsell & Stormer, I'm hoping to preserve the rights guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights,' Zareh Gorjian, a 17-year JPL employee, said at a news conference at the Pasadena-based law firm."

"[Scientists] are claiming that the agency may be trying to control or silence them about issues like global warming. [...] Interestingly too, the background checks are only required of permanent employees. People who come to work at JPL or Goddard for less than six months don't need them--a curious lapse if the concern is security. [...] [T]he directive states that the standard for establishing employees' identities is to be established independently by each agency, and that agencies can use 'graduated criteria, from least secure to most secure, to ensure flexibility in selecting the appropriate level of security for each application.' For unexplained reasons, Griffin chose an extreme standard for the space agency's two key research centers."

"Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientists and engineers sued NASA and the California Institute of Technology on Thursday, challenging extensive new background checks that the space exploration center and other federal agencies began requiring [...] Those who refuse could lose their jobs, the suit says. 'They don't tell you what they're looking for, they don't tell you when they're looking for it, they won't tell us what they're doing with the data,' said plaintiff Susan Foster, a technical writer and editor at JPL for nearly 40 years."

"I can fly a spacecraft to any planet in the galaxy, and I'm being judged by people who don't have a clue as to my technical qualifications whether I'm suitable for government service," said [Dennis] Byrnes.

"It seems to us a fruitless venture in the War on Terror. This is a security apparatus that has gotten out of control, using 9/11 as a pretext to gather background information on innocent civilians, and in our case, engineers and scientists who are not doing classified research," said [JPL Scientist Robert] Nelson.