Shearson v. US DEPT. OF HOMELAND SEC.
638 F.3d 498
6th Cir.2011Background
- Shearson, a U.S. citizen, and her minor daughter were detained at a border crossing after CBP flagged them as 'ARMED AND DANGEROUS' by computer; vehicle search damaged the car.
- CBP later disclosed TECS records redacted; a second search yielded additional documents later withheld from Shearson.
- Shearson filed Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals; district court later granted summary judgment favoring Defendants on Privacy Act claims.
- District court held TECS and related systems exempt under § 552a(j)(2) from several Privacy Act provisions and from § 552a(g) civil remedies.
- This Sixth Circuit appeal involved whether the agencies could exempt from civil remedies and which Privacy Act provisions remained actionable.
- Court held some non-exemptible claims could proceed despite exemptions, and others were properly dismissed as exempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a system be wholly exempted from § 552a(g) civil remedies under § 552a(j)? | Shearson argues § 552a(g) cannot be exempted if underlying duties are non-exemptible. | DHS/CBP contend exemptions from § 552a(g) bar all claims. | Agency may exempt from g only to the extent underlying duties are exemptible; non-exemptible claims may proceed. |
| Were the TECS/ATS exemptions from § 552a(g) procedurally adequate? | Exemption rule failed to clearly cover non-exemptible claims like § 552a(b) and § 552a(e)(7). | Rule justified exemptions broadly to avoid civil liability. | Exemption from g was procedurally ambiguous; remand to resolve whether b and e7 claims may proceed. |
| Did § 552a(d)(1)-(4), (e)(1), and (e)(5) claims properly fall within exemptible provisions? | Defendants improperly shielded these non-exemptible rights. | TECS exemptions authorized these sections as exemptible. | Dismissal affirmed for claims under §§ 552a(d)(1)-(4), (e)(1), (e)(5). |
| Whether § 552a(e)(4) notice and adverse effect requirements were satisfied for ATS disclosures? | Earlier notices may have been faulty; could support § 552a(e)(4) claim if adverse effects shown. | No sufficiently pleaded adverse effect from ATS notice delay. | Claim properly denied for lack of adverse effect; § 552a(g)(1)(D) not satisfied; § 552a(e)(4) claim failed. |
| What is the effect of non-exemptible provisions on liability after valid exemptions? | Even with exemptions, some non-exemptible duties remain actionable. | Exemptions remove civil liability for exemptible duties. | Non-exemptible claims can proceed where exemptions do not apply; other claims properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (U.S. 2004) (privacy Act purposes; agency may maintain records relevant and necessary to law; consent to disclose)
- Doe v. F.B.I., 936 F.2d 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency may not exempt itself from liability for non-exempted duties via § 552a(j))
- Ryan v. Department of Justice, 595 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1979) (exemption from civil remedies under § 552a(g) requires proper rulemaking)
- Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, 788 F.2d 434 (7th Cir. 1986) (agency may exempt systems from § 552a(g) if exemptions properly stated)
- Alexander v. United States, 787 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1986) (circuit split on whether agencies can exempt from civil remedies)