A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.
In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.
"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.
Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.
In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."
Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.
In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.
"I was in bad shape, I didn't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again.
"I found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."
He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.
Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.
He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.
"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."
Cooper, who was eventually allowed to fly again, sued.
"I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did."
A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.
Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.
A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.
During an hour of oral arguments last year, the justices stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.
"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.
"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.
The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.
"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."
Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.