Although L.A. Times reporter David G. Savage thought things didn’t go well for Caltech scientists in the Supreme Court today, Lyle Denniston offers a different perspective on how oral arguments went in the background check privacy case where the government is the employer:
Two perceptions emerged with clarity Tuesday from a complex Supreme Court argument about government demands for information about people’s private lives. First, the Court is not going to follow Justice Antonin Scalia’s lead and remove all constitutional restraints on such demands. Second, it was plain that only a good deal of bargaining from here on could settle just what restraint might remain. Somewhat less clearly, the prospect arose that the Court in the end might find itself able to reach a very narrow ruling, leaving the full scope of “informational privacy” for another day.
Read more on SCOTUSBlog.