Federal Aviation Administration v. Stanmore Cawthon Cooper
In brief
The Privacy Act does not clearly allow emotional-distress damages from the federal government, so the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit's ruling and sent Cooper's case back.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-3 · March 28, 2012 · Opinion by Justice Alito
- What it’s about
- After Stanmore Cooper’s HIV status reached the FAA and his pilot certificate was revoked, he sought damages for emotional distress under the Privacy Act.
- Who it affects
- People seeking damages from the federal government under the Privacy Act cannot recover for mental or emotional distress under this ruling.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that the Act did not clearly let people recover such damages from the federal government, overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and sent the case back to that court (remanded).
The dispute began after Cooper's HIV status reached the FAA and the agency revoked his pilot certificate.
The Privacy Act of 1974 lets people seek damages for certain federal-agency misconduct.
Question presented
Does the Privacy Act's "actual damages" provision cover mental and emotional distress?
What the Court decided
Holding
The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the Government’s sovereign immunity from liability for such harms. Pp. 4– 19. 622 F. 3d 1016, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said Congress must clearly authorize suits against the federal government. It found that the Privacy Act does not clearly authorize damages for mental or emotional distress.
The vote
From the opinions
“That result is at odds with the text, structure, and drafting history of the Act.”
What's next
The case returns to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings under the Supreme Court's ruling; the Supreme Court did not decide the case's ultimate outcome.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - FAA
Opinion added: FAA
More questions
- Why did Justice Sotomayor disagree?
- She argued that the Privacy Act's text and purpose support emotional-distress damages, and that excluding them weakens the law's privacy protections.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.