Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper
132 S. Ct. 1441
| SCOTUS | 2012Background
- Cooper, a licensed pilot, had HIV diagnosed in 1985 and was initially grounded when FAA would not issue medical certificates to him for that condition.
- From 1994 onward, he obtained and renewed FAA certificates without disclosing his HIV status or medications.
- DOT and SSA conducted Operation Safe Pilot, sharing pilot names and disability-benefit data to identify medically unfit pilots.
- Investigation revealed Cooper’s current FAA certificate was maintained despite undisclosed medical information; FAA revoked his pilot certificate after review.
- Cooper sued the FAA, DOT, and SSA under the Privacy Act for alleged unlawful disclosures causing him non-pecuniary harms; the district court found a violation, the Ninth Circuit held “actual damages” includes mental distress, and the Supreme Court reversed, limiting “actual damages” to pecuniary harms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ‘actual damages’ under the Privacy Act includes nonpecuniary harms. | Cooper; broad reading includes mental distress. | Government; limits to pecuniary harm under sovereign immunity. | No; ‘actual damages’ does not unequivocally include mental distress. |
| Is the Privacy Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity triggered by nonpecuniary damages. | Waiver should cover all proven harms including nonpecuniary. | Waiver restricted to pecuniary damages. | Waiver does not extend to nonpecuniary damages. |
| What interpretive approach governs ‘actual damages’ in the Privacy Act (textual, context, or sovereign-immunity canon). | Traditional tools support broad meaning including nonpecuniary harms. | Ambiguities resolved in favor of immunity; adopt narrow reading. | Contextual analysis supports limiting to pecuniary harm; sovereignty prevails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Peña, 518 U. S. 187 (1996) (unequivocal expression required to waive sovereign immunity)
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30 (1992) (ambiguity means immunity governs; broad readings disfavored)
- Doe v. Chao, 540 U. S. 614 (2004) (Privacy Act remedial provisions; parallels to defamation; $1,000 minimum)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974) (actual injury not limited to out-of-pocket loss; nonpecuniary harms possible in defamation context)
- Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967) (privacy-related damages often include mental distress)