Whether the Court's opinion in National Aeronautics and Space Administrator, et al. v. Nelson diverged from its previous holdings in Whalen v. Roe and Nixon v. Administrator of General Services et al., with respect to a constitutional right to informational privacy

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the Court’s opinion in National Aeronautics and Space Administrator, et al. v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134 (2011), diverged from its previous holdings in Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), and Nixon v. Administrator of General Services et al., 433 U.S. 425 (1977), with respect to a constitutional right to informational privacy, such that officials who released personal information identifying minor victims of sexual abuse and the details of that abuse are entitled to qualified immunity. 2. Whether a constitutional right may be clearly established in the absence of controlling Supreme Court precedent for qualified immunity analysis. Compare, e.g., Carrillo v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 798 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2015) (law clearly established for qualified immunity purposes based on controlling circuit authority even though the Supreme Court had not yet weighed in on the issue) with Dillard v. O’Kelley, 961 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (law not clearly established, despite controlling circuit authority, because the Supreme Court was silent on the issue).