Many of your followed my series on my wife's battle with the implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (Part I here).

Part of the story is a court case filed by employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab to block parts of this implementation. Today there has been a media advisory in this case:

JPL Employees vs Caltech, NASA and Department of Commerce
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12

For Immediate Release Oct 1, 2007

Federal Judge Indicates He May Issue Temporary Limited Injunction

Judge Otis Wright suggested he may issue some form of a limited temporary injunction in the next few days in the case of 28 employees of Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who filed suit against Caltech and NASA for over-intrusive background checks that are being conducted in association with issuing new identification badges for access to JPL.

Judge Wright set a hearing on the question of a permanent injunction for October 19, at 3:30 PM in Courtroom 11 of the United States Courthouse in Los Angeles.

The judge said he had particular concerns about a question regarding drug use that employees had to answer on United States Office of Personnel Management Form
Sf85.

In addition to the 28 plaintiffs, hundreds of JPL employees have taken issue with the background checks. Caltech attorney Mark Holscher conceded in court that only 4100 of JPL’s 7500 employees and contractors have begun to fill out the forms.

The deadline for completing the process for all employees is October 5. A small number of JPL employees who have security clearances do not have to complete the Sf85 form. This form is intended only for employees who are not doing classified work

Robert M. Nelson, lead plaintiff in the case against NASA said, “I am encouraged to learn that some of the concerns that my colleagues and I have raised over the last two years about this intrusive investigation process are beginning to receive judicial review. We are a nation that was founded on a principle of checks and balances between the branches of government. The judicial branch has begun its job.”

Further information and all court documents are at the website hspd12jpl.org.

I should note that a.) this is not YET an injunciton and b.) there is no mention of the blanket waiver the employees are expected to sign, which is the main bone of contention in the case (at least for my wife). But, it is a good sign.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |