Dissent

On January 19, the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that the federal government can inquire about the personal finances, mental and emotional stability, and other personal matters of government contractors.

The high court overturned a 2008 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that such inquiries had little connection to security or other government concerns.

The lawsuit was brought by 28 scientists and engineers working for the NASA-funded Jet Propulsion Laboratory who objected to the invasive government background checks. The employees, most of whom have worked for decades for the California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA, had passed background checks when they were first hired. However, a 2004 Bush administration order compelled them to undergo a second background check in order to meet increased security standards.

Writing for six of the justices, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that such inquiries into the private lives government employees and contractors were "reasonable investigations."

However, he also said that he assumed a federal right to informational privacy exists, but that the background checks in question did not violate that right.

This drew a critical concurring opinion from Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, who lambasted the rest of the court for accepting a federal right to privacy. 

Since 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a federal right to privacy. In 1972, voters amended the California Constitution to add an explicit right to privacy.

None of the workers who brought the lawsuit were assigned to top-secret projects, but they nevertheless faced investigations, including probes into their medical and financial records, emotional and psychological condition, and other personal matters.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because as Solicitor General she was involved in the case.

Amidst cries for her resignation, Linda P.B. Katehi, the chancellor of UC Davis, apologized on November 21 to thousands of students and faculty rallying in the wake of massive outrage over campus police using pepper spray three days earlier on non-violent student supporters of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

A day after the pepper-spraying incident, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza defended her officers' tactics, saying that students had surrounded police who were trapped.

But video of the incident posted on You Tube contradicted the police chief's description. The university acknowledged as much in a statement  saying, "Videos taken during Friday's arrests showed that the two officers used pepper spray on peacefully seated students." 

Spicuzza and the two officers involved in the spraying have been placed on leave. 

The violence at UC Davis followed controversy over law enforcement officers at UC Berkeley using batons to beat and jab non-violent demonstrators who had linked arms to prevent campus police and Alameda County sheriff's deputies from taking down tents around Sproul Hall, the campus' administration building.

Protestors had earlier set up tents in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement and to protest hikes in student fees.

UC police captain Margo Bennett tried to justify the police use of force by equating the students' linking of arms to violence, saying "The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence."

Students continued to occupy the plaza around Sproul Hall. But in an early morning raid on November 18, police cleared the area of about 40 protestors who were camping in the plaza.

For several months in 1964, Sproul Plaza was the epicenter of the Free Speech Movement, in which UC Berkeley students fought against university policies restricting political speech and activities on the campus.

On May 16, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition of five foreign nationals who sued Jeppesen Dataplan, a San Jose-based subsidiary of Boeing that the men accuse of arranging CIA extraordinary rendition flights to countries where they were tortured.

The men had asked the high court to review a sharply divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling dismissing their lawsuit filed by the ACLU. The civil liberties group argued that the government is misusing the claim of "state secrets" to deny the men their day in court.

The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, claimed that the case should be thrown out because trying the suit would reveal state secrets.

But the ACLU countered that that lawsuit is based on publicly available information.

A 2007 Council of Europe report described Jeppesen as the CIA's aviation services provider. A court declaration in the men's legal challenge quotes a Jeppesen manager as telling colleagues in 2006 that the company arranged the CIA's "torture flights."