Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
De grenzen van de Supreme Court "werkelijke schade" onder de Privacy ActA Californi? man opgeroepen wanneer de regering publiekelijk onthuld dat zijn HIV statusThe 5-3 uitspraak van het Hof conservatieve meerderheid tegen de liberale minorityJustice Elena Kagan, de voormalige vice-minister, ontpit nam niet deel

Washington ((CNN)) - A verdeeld Supreme Court oordeelde woensdag tegen een Californi? piloot die vervolgd nadat de federale regering publiekelijk onthuld zijn MIV-status.

In een 5-3 uitspraak besloten de high court Stanmore Cooper's claims van mentale en emotionele nood vallen niet onder de Privacy Act.

"De Privacy Act doet niet ondubbelzinnig schade voor mentale of emotionele nood toestaan en daarom doet geen afstand doen van de regering soevereine immuniteit voor dergelijke harms," schreef Justitie Samuel Alito voor de conservatieve meerderheid.

Drie liberale justices zich afgescheiden, terwijl een vierde, voormalig vice-minister Elena Kagan, nam niet deel.

In een verklaring woensdag zei Cooper dat het "ontmoedigend dat een meerderheid van de rechter van de regering zijde."

Cooper werd een gelicentieerde recreatieve piloot in 1964, maar twee decennia later, de San Francisco man werd gediagnosticeerd met HIV. Zijn toestand verergerd, wil hij zijn vervallen medisch attest vliegenier en van zijn privé piloot certificaat.

In 1996, Cooper toegepast voor lange termijn handicap met de Social Security Administration.

"Ik was in slechte vorm, ik heb niet lang te leven," zei hij vorig jaar. Maar zijn gezondheid verbeterd dankzij een cocktail van anti-retrovirale therapie. Hij ging terug aan het werk en wilde weer vliegen.

"Ik ontdekte ze waren medisch onderzoek (uitzonderingen) afgifte en ik opnieuw toegepast" aan de Federal Aviation Administration "zonder onthullen mijn MIV-status", zei hij. "Grote fout."

Hij ontving zijn nieuwe piloot certificaat, maar onbekend aan hem, een gezamenlijk initiatief van de lokale-federale genaamd operatie veilige Pilot werd gelanceerd in 2002. Met behulp van een werkblad, de agentschappen gedeeld en de namen en persoonlijke gegevens van ongeveer 45.000 piloten in Noord-Californi?, op zoek naar potentieel medisch ongeschikt individuen die ook federale voordelen ontvangen waren vergeleken.

Cooper was een van vier dozijn of zo piloten gelabeld als een "persoon die van belang." Wanneer geconfronteerd door de overheid ressorterende beambten, hij toegelaten tot een misdrijf last van een valse melding.

Hij werd veroordeeld tot een proeftijd en een boete, en zijn piloot certificaat is ingetrokken. Naam van het directielid voormalig business is aangeboden in een federale persbericht en later, door zijn vervolging, Cooper's medische geschiedenis plotseling was een kwestie van openbare record.

"Ik had geweest kundig voor zeggenschap die (met) wie ik mijn informatie gedeeld over mijn MIV-status, beperkt tot bepaalde collega's, familie en vrienden," zei hij "en plotseling dat was uit mijn controle."

Cooper, die uiteindelijk werd toegestaan om te vliegen weer, opgeroepen.

"Ik koos niet te onthullen mijn HIV-infectie en dat was een zeer slechte zaak," zei hij. "Ik nam de verantwoordelijkheid voor het en ik betaalde de prijs. Ik werd gestraft. En ik denk dat nu is het beurt van de regering om eigen tot het breken van de wet en neem verantwoordelijkheid voor wat zij deden. "

Een federale rechter vond zowel de FAA en de Social Security Administration geschonden de Privacy Act met het onderzoek van informatie-uitwisseling, maar zei onder de wet, alleen "werkelijke schade" kunnen worden ingezameld door eisers eisende.

Omdat Cooper geen vorderingen voor economische schade, zoals verlies van de lonen of medische kosten maakte, was hij van geluk. De rechter vond "emotionele schade" alleen niet gekwalificeerd en verwierp het proces.

Een federaal Hof van beroep teruggedraaid die beslissing, uitspraak voor Cooper. Toen vroeg de FAA het high court om in te grijpen.

Tijdens een uur van mondelinge argumenten vorig jaar bleef de justices weg van de specifieke claims van emotionele schade gemaakt door Cooper, zich in plaats daarvan te concentreren op wat de wet zegt over kwalificatie voor schade.

"Het argument dat u hebt gemaakt-- en ik begrijp het, dat dit de Privacy Act en dus het is precies deze soorten schade die u zou betrokken over--echt beide manieren bezuinigingen," zei Chief Justice John Roberts aan Cooper's advocaat.

"Wat u zegt is dat deze (wet) heeft betrekking op een echt grote brok van schade, omdat dit wat de hele wet is over was," zei Roberts. "En het lijkt mij dat argument suggereert dat er wat gewicht aan de regering punt: dat als je gaat om dat te krijgen, je echt nodig duidelijker" taal in de wet dat de regering tot op zekere hoogte van een overstroming van hard-aan-weerleggen rechtszaken immuniseren zou.

De dubbelzinnigheid lagere rechtbanken jarenlang heeft verdeeld, en privacy deskundigen zei het gemak waarmee de regering kan verzamelen en informatie uit te wisselen in het digitale tijdperk maakt de kwestie van de aansprakelijkheid van de persoonlijke levenssfeer rijp voor herziening.

Justitie Ruth Bader Ginsburg gehamerd herhaaldelijk weg bij de regering advocaat pleit voor de FAA. Ze zei dat de betrokken bepaling van de federale schade is vergelijkbaar met staat onrechtmatige daad claims die zowel emotionele en financi?le schade omvatten.

"De persoon die is onderworpen aan dit, tot deze verlegenheid, deze vernedering, voorschotten niet hebben, maar is vreselijk verdrietig, angstig en nerveus, en al de rest," zei Ginsburg. "De wet dat is het bereiken van het Congres, de impact is van die aard. Ik bedoel, geldelijke schade (monetaire) wonen normaal gedrag dat gênant, vernedert u, oorzaken van geestelijke nood."

Eric Feigin van het ministerie van Justitie zei de Privacy Act de taal kan worden ge?nterpreteerd als schadevergoeding voor zulke dingen als "vernedering, verlegenheid en geestelijke angst" waardoor, maar omdat de uitdrukking "werkelijke" blijft vaag schade, dat de regering moet krijgen het voordeel van de twijfel, zei het geval kantelen in eigen voordeel.

"Gewoon omdat een eiser een negatief effect kan hebben geleden" van de privacy schending, Feigin, betoogde "betekent niet dat de eiser werkelijke schade geleden."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's advocaat, tijdens de hoorzitting dat zijn cli?nt informatie openbaar werd gemaakt en zijn naam en MIV-status nog op een federale regering database Gepost zijn gewezen. Hij maakte ook een grotere argument, dat zijn cli?nt dilemma is één die gevolgen voor alle Amerikanen hebben kan.

"Congres deze daad de burger vertrouwen in hun regering, en het maakte een plechtige belofte voor de Amerikaanse burgers dat in geval van opzettelijke en opzettelijke schending, de Verenigde Staten is aansprakelijk voor werkelijke schade te herstellen," zei Cardozo. "Vandaag, de regering stelt dat"werkelijke schade"worden gelezen op een manier die maakt deze wet vrijwel niet relevant. Dat is een aanfluiting van die plechtige belofte."

Cooper studeerde aan de openbare zitting bij de rechtbank en drukte optimisme daarna die hij zou zegevieren.

"Ze heb verraden mijn vertrouwen en ik kan niet krijgen dat terug," zei Cooper op het moment. "Er was niets te verliezen hier. Ik had om het te doen. Het was het juiste ding om te doen."

Het geval is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen en Kate Bolduan bijdragen aan dit verslag.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- 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.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- 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.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage in case of HIV privacy

The limits of the Supreme Court "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the Government publicly revealed that his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling of the Court conservative majority against the Liberal Elena Kagan minorityJustice, the former Deputy Prime Minister, pitted did not participate

Washington ((CNN)) -A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the Federal Government publicly unveiled his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling decided the high court Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered by the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not allow for mental or emotional distress damages unambiguous and therefore does not waive the Government's sovereign immunity for such harms," wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices are separated, while a fourth, former Deputy Minister Elena Kagan, did not participate.

Cooper said Wednesday In a statement that it was "disheartening that a majority of the Court of the Government side."

Cooper was a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. His condition worsened, he wants his expired medical certificate of his private pilot certificate and Aviator.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I don'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 discovered they were medical examination (exceptions) issue and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without disclosing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot certificate, but unknown to him, a joint initiative of the local-Federal called operation safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and the names and personal information of approximately 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potential medical unfit individuals who receive federal benefits were also compared.

Cooper was one of four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a felony charge of a false message.

He was sentenced to probation and a fine, and his pilot certificate is revoked. Name of the former business executive is offered in a federal press release and later, by his persecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to say that (with) who I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to certain colleagues, family and friends," he said "and suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, which 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 the responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it is turn of the Government 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 research of information exchange, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by prosecutors demanding.

Because Cooper no claims for economic damages, such as lost wages or medical expenses made, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional damage" only not qualified and dismissed the process.

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 remained away from the specific claims of emotional damage created by Cooper, instead concentrating on what the law says about qualification for damage.

"The argument that you made--and I understand, that this is the Privacy Act and so it is exactly these kinds of damage that you would be concerned about--really cuts both ways," said Chief Justice John Roberts to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is that this (law) refers to a really big chunk of damage, because this is what the whole law was over," said Roberts. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the Government point: that if you are going to get that, you really need clearer" language in the law that the Government to some extent of a flood of hard-to-refute lawsuits would immunize.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the Government can collect and exchange information in the digital age makes the issue of liability of the privacy ripe for revision.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the Government Attorney pleads for the FAA. She said that the relevant provision of the Federal damage is similar to State tort claims which include both emotional and financial damage.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, humiliation, advances do not have, but this is terribly sad, anxious and nervous, and all the rest," said Ginsburg. "The law that is the reach of Congress, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary damages (monetary) live normal behavior that embarrassing, humiliates you, causes of mental distress. "

Eric Feigin of the Ministry of Justice said the Privacy Act the language can be interpreted as damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish" making, but because the expression "actual" damages remains vague, that the Government should get the benefit of the doubt, said the event tilt in its favor.

"Just because a plaintiff can have a negative effect of the privacy violation, Feigin, ago" argued "does not mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's Attorney, during the hearing that his client information was made public and his name and HIV status still on a Federal Government database Posted are pointed. He also made a larger argument, that his client dilemma is one that may have implications for all Americans.

"Congress this Act the citizen confidence in their Government, and it made a solemn promise for u.s. citizens that in cases of intentional and deliberate violation, the United States is liable for actual damages to recover," said Cardozo. "Today, the Government argues that" actual damages "should be read in a way that makes this law virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise. "

Cooper attended the public hearing at the Court and expressed optimism after which he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," said Cooper at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do. "

The case Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contributions to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- 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.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

John Payton, a lawyer who argued bias cases before Supreme Court, dies at 65 - Washington Post

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
- The Washington Post Print SubscriptionConversationsToday's PaperGoing Out GuideJobsCarsReal EstateRentalsClassifiedsShoppingHomePoliticsCampaign 2012CongressCourts &LawThe Fed PageHealth CarePollingWhite HouseBlogs & ColumnsIssues: EnergyTop Blogs

Election 2012 | Felicia SonmezThe Fix | Chris CillizzaFederal Eye | Ed O’KeefeFact Checker | Glenn KesslerOpinionsAll OpinionsPostPartisanLeft-LeaningRight-LeaningTolesCartoonsTelnaesAnimationsLocalColumnist IndexLocalDC: Politics| NewsMD: Politics| CommunitiesVA: Politics| CommunitiesCrimeEducationOn Faith/LocalObituariesTraffic & CommutingWeatherBlogs & ColumnsThe Root DCTop Blogs

Post NowThe BuzzCapital Weather GangDr. GridlockSportsRedskins/NFLCapitals/NHLWizards/NBANationals/MLBDC United/SoccerCollegesAllMetSportsOther SportsBlogs & ColumnsTop Blogs

The Insider| Mike JonesCapitals Insider| Katie CarreraWizards Insider | Michael LeeNationals Journal| Adam KilgoreNationalCorrectionsEnergy & EnvironmentHealth & ScienceHigher EducationNational SecurityOn FaithOn LeadershipInnovationsOn GivingBlogs & ColumnsTop Blogs

Ideas@InnovationsPost LeadershipUnder GodCheckpoint WashingtonWorldAfricaTheAmericasAsia &PacificEuropeMiddle EastNational SecurityWar ZonesSpecial ReportsCheckpoint WashingtonBusinessEconomyIndustriesLocal BusinessMarketsPolicy&RegulationTechnologyWorldBusinessBlogs & ColumnsInnovationsOn Small BusinessTop Blogs

Wonkblog | Ezra KleinPost Tech | Cecilia KangFaster ForwardWhere We LiveInvestigationsLifestyleAdviceCarolyn HaxFoodHome & GardenStyleTravelWeddingsWellnessMagazineKidsPostTop Blogs

The Style BlogAll We Can EatReliable Source | Roxanne Roberts & Amy ArgetsingerOn Parenting | Janice D’ArcyEntertainmentBooksCelebritiesComicsGoing Out GuideHoroscopesMoviesMuseumsPuzzlesTheater & DanceTVTop Blogs

TV Column | Lisa de MoraesCelebritology | Jen ChaneyComic Riffs | Michael CavnaClassical Beat | Anne MidgetteMultimediaInnovationsPhotosVideosThe Washington PostMake us your start pagePersonalizeThe Washington PostD.C. MarylandVirginiaCrimeEducationOn Faith/LocalObituariesTraffic & CommutingWeatherBlogs & ColumnsThe Root DCIn the NewsFreeze watch Death threat Md. privatization Montgomery transit Milloy apology ???initialComments:true! pubdate:03/24/2012 10:34 EDT! commentPeriod:14! commentEndDate:4/7/12 10:34 EDT! currentDate:3/25/12 8:0 EDT! allowComments:true! displayComments:true!Behind the scenes at the White House

The art and innovation of the real ‘Mad Men’

Venus and Jupiter, meet the moon

Climbing to the top of the National Cathedral

John Payton, a lawyer who argued bias cases before Supreme Court, dies at 65Text SizePrintE-mailReprints By T. Rees Shapiro, The Washington Post

John Payton, a lawyer and civil rights advocate who argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court involving discrimination in the workplace and the rights of universities to include race as a factor in admissions, died March 22 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He was 65.

He had complications from multiple myeloma, said his wife, Gay McDougall, a civil and human rights activist.

Loading...

Comments

Weigh InCorrections?

Personal Post(Alex Brandon/ASSOCIATED PRESS) - NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund President and Director-Counsel John Payton died March 22 at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He was 65.

At his death, Mr. Payton was president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, a civil rights legal organization.

Mr. Payton’s appointment to the fund in 2008 capped a five-decade career devoted to the protection of minorities. During the early 1990s, he was the District’s corporation counsel, or chief legal officer. The position is now called the D.C. attorney general.

In a statement, President Obama called Mr. Payton “a true champion of equality” who will be remembered for his “courage and fierce opposition to discrimination in all its forms.”

While a student at Pomona College in the 1960s, Mr. Payton helped establish the California school’s first black student association. He also successfully lobbied Pomona’s parent institution, the Claremont Colleges consortium, for the creation of a black studies program.

After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1977, he clerked for a year for Judge Cecil F. Poole of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, before joining the D.C. law firm Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering.

He contributed to the firm’s representation of the NAACP in various legal matters. In a 1982 case before the U.S. Supreme Court, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., he helped the civil rights organization avoid paying a financial penalty after organizing a 1960s boycott against white merchants in Mississippi.

In 1988, Mr. Payton represented the city of Richmond in a Supreme Court case involving a city program in which 30 percent of municipal construction jobs had to be given to minority-owned businesses. The court ruled that Richmond’s law was unconstitutional because it violated white-owned construction firms’ right to equal protection.

In the late 1990s, Mr. Payton served as the lead counsel for the University of Michigan in two
cases involving its use of race in admissions. One concerned admissions at the undergraduate level and the other at the law school.

The cases were split once they reached the Supreme Court. Mr. Payton led the defense in Gratz v. Bollinger, the 2003 case involving the undergraduate admission policy.

The Supreme Court upheld the law school’s affirmative action process — in which applicants received a more individualized review — and rejected Mr. Payton’s defense of the undergraduate policies, which utilized a point system that was considered unfair by its opponents.

In 2008, Mr. Payton left Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering — now known as WilmerHale — to lead the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Mr. Payton successfully represented a group of black firefighters in a Supreme Court case against the city of Chicago. In that case, the city’s fire department had used test scores for hiring purposes. Because of the way the test was graded, no black applicants had qualified. The court found that the city had discriminated against the black recruits by not using a different system for grading the tests.

Continued12Next PageEmailTumblrRedditStumbleuponDiggDeliciousDiscussion Policy | FAQ | About DiscussionsLoading...

Comments

Add your comment
Read about the changes to comment thread appearance, moderation. ?Read what others are sayingAbout Badges SuperFan Badge

SuperFan badge holders consistently post smart, timely comments about Washington area sports and teams.

More about badges | Request a badge

Culture Connoisseur Badge

Culture Connoisseurs consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on the arts, lifestyle and entertainment.

More about badges | Request a badge

Fact Checker Badge

Fact Checkers contribute questions, information and facts to The Fact Checker.

More about badges | Request a badge

Washingtologist Badge

Washingtologists consistently post thought-provoking, timely comments on events, communities, and trends in the Washington area.

More about badges | Request a badge

Post Writer Badge

This commenter is a Washington Post editor, reporter or producer.

Post Forum Badge

Post Forum members consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on politics, national and international affairs.

More about badges | Request a badge

Weather Watcher Badge

Weather Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on climates and forecasts.

More about badges | Request a badge

World Watcher Badge

World Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on international affairs.

More about badges | Request a badge

Post Recommended

Washington Post reporters or editors recommend this comment or reader post.

You must be logged in to report a comment.

Sign in here

You must be logged in to recommend a comment.

Sign in here

Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: . Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers.

All comments are posted in the All Comments tab.

More about badgesGet a badge

To pause and restart automatic updates, click "Live" or "Paused". If paused, you'll be notified of the number of additional comments that have come in.

Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: . Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers. + SHARE THIS DEBATE WP Social Reader Hide this

Friends' Activity Most Popular in local Most Popular in local

Most Popular Right Now

Your Friends’ Most Recent Activity

View More Activity

Powered byThe Post Most: LocalMost-viewed stories, videos and galleries int he past two hours

Most PopularBatman pulled over in Silver SpringIndian Sikhs in Loudoun say death threat is a rarity amid lives of suburban successFive universities that really are up-and-comersFreeze watch Monday night for most of Washington, D.C. areaApologies to black fathersTop VideosAA flight attendant's 9/11 rant (0:56)Protests nationwide over birth control mandate (1:36)John Kelly's home movies (0:57)D.C. cherry blossoms blooming early (2:12)Apple store footage during Lululemon murder (3:12)Top GalleriesClimbing to the top of the National CathedralDeath threat shocks Loudoun's SikhsD.C.'s cherry blossomsNonbelievers rally in D.C. for recognition, respectNorwood sentenced to life in prison in Lululemon killingFeatured Advertiser Links for L U N G C A N C E R V I C T I M S>>HIP REPLACEMENT -- did you get one after '03?>>Help Barack stand up for working Americans. Join our campaign now.>>The only candidate fighting for the middle class: Pres. Obama. Join us.>>Sign up for email updates from President Obama's 2012 campaign.>>Sign up for official email updates from Barack Obama's campaign.>>Looking to buy a home? Visit TWP Real Estate section for the latest open houses.>>Make Your Vanguard Investing More Profitable - Free Research Report Reveals Best & Worst Funds>>Top local Stories People Also ReadMost Popular VideosBatman pulled over in Silver SpringKatie Rogers?

Indian Sikhs in Loudoun say death threat is rarity amid lives of suburban successPamela Constable?

Five universities that really are up-and-comersDaniel De Vise?

Freeze watch Monday night for most of Washington, D.C. areaJason Samenow?

Apologies to black fathersCourtland Milloy?

4 killed in Route 50 crash::unspecified::?

‘There is no joy in education these days’Valerie Strauss?

Task force: Montgomery County rapid bus system to require property tax increaseVictor Zapana?

Bag fee dead in Prince George’sMiranda S. Spivack?

Bill would let Maryland seek out private partners for public projectsAaron C. Davis?

What the latest revelations on test cheating really meanValerie Strauss?

Defense Dept.’s longest-serving general and African American retiresVa. governor’s chef leaves amid investigationAnita Kumar?

Motorists scoop up armored car money, in scene witness calls ‘snow globe of cash’Dan Morse?

NASA waits for clear skies to launch rockets from Wallops IslandMartin Weil?

Ignoring a reform that worksValerie Strauss?

Answer Man solves the mystery of the sad Shirlington buildingJohn Kelly?

Brittany Norwood receives life, no parole, for killing Jayna Murray in Lululemon yoga storePaul Duggan?

For CIA family, a deadly suicide bombing leads to painful divisionsIan Shapira?

Fairfax teacher placed on leaveEmma Brown?

Ways you can get us

Mobile Apps Newsletter & alerts RSS Post Store Facebook Washington Post Live Twitter The Washington Post

Work for us Community Relations PostPoints Corrections/Suggestions Archive Contact the Ombudsman Report a problem Web site

Make us your homepage Digital Guidelines Ask The Post Newspaper

Subscribe Home delivery service e-Replica Advertise

In the newspaper On the web site Mobile Events The Washington Post Company

Post Company web sites Partners Slate Express Night Out Captial Business El Tiempo Latino The Root Foreign Policy Trove Post Tickets Capitol Deal Service Alley Post Master Class WP Live Student Advisor College Reviews ? 1996- The Washington Post Terms of Service Privacy Policy Reprints and Permissions RSS Terms of Service Help Contact Us Ad Choices Section:/local/obituaries

View the original article here

In Stolen Valor Act Case, Supreme Court Debates When Lies Can Be Crimes

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday morning appeared divided over whether to strike down a federal law that makes it a crime for a person to lie about receiving military honors.

In 2007, Xavier Alvarez, an elected member of a Los Angeles-area water board, introduced himself at a public meeting as a retired Marine. "Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor," he added for the record. Both statements were lies -- and the latter he would find out, when the FBI came looking for him, had recently been made a federal crime.

The Stolen Valor Act, passed by Congress in 2006, states that "whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both." Alvarez would become the first person convicted under the act.

He appealed his conviction on the ground that the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment protections for free speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2010 agreed, reversing the lower court and striking down the act. Since the Supreme Court consented to hear United States v. Alvarez this past fall, another appeals court has upheld the act, creating a split among the circuits.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, told the justices on Wednesday that the 9th Circuit's fears of a society where any knowing falsehood could be criminalized were unfounded. The Stolen Valor Act prohibits only a "carefully limited and narrowly drawn category of calculated factual falsehoods" regarding military honors, Verrilli said at the start of his presentation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor then wondered about a hypothetical Vietnam War protester who holds up a sign that reads, "I won a Purple Heart -- for killing babies." If the protester knew his statement to be false, Sotomayor asked, "Is that person, if he's not a veteran having received the medal, is he liable under this act?"

If a reasonable observer would see the sign as "political theater," Verrilli answered, then "it's not within the scope of the statute, and it wouldn't be subject to liability."

But, Verrilli continued, "this Court has said in numerous contexts, numerous contexts, that the calculated factual falsehood has no First Amendment value for its own sake."

"It has said it often, but always in context where it is well understood that speech can injure," responded Justice Anthony Kennedy, pointing to defamation and fraud actions. "I think it's a sweeping proposition to say that there's no value to falsity," he went on. "Falsity is a way in which we contrast what is false and what is true."

But Alvarez's lies and others implicated under the Stolen Valor Act do cause injury, Justice Antonin Scalia said. "[T]here's harm to those courageous men and women who receive the decorations," said Scalia. "Their service is demeaned when everybody says, 'I served in the armed forces.'"

Sotomayor disagreed. "[Y]ou can't really believe that a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she receives because someone's claiming fraudulently that they got one," she said. "They don't think less of the medal. We're reacting to the fact that we're offended by the thought that someone's claiming an honor they didn't receive."

"So outside of the emotional reaction, where's the harm?" she asked. "And I'm not minimizing it. I, too, take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true."

Throughout Verrilli's presentation, Scalia seemed to be the lone unambiguous supporter of the Stolen Valor Act, going so far as to declare flatly, "I believe that there is no First Amendment value in falsehood." The justice's clear intent to uphold the act comes in some contrast to his votes in recent years to strike down, on First Amendment grounds, a federal ban on dogfighting videos, a California ban on the sale of violent video games and a jury verdict against funeral picketers. Scalia's son Matthew served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.

But whatever lead Alvarez had at the end of the solicitor general's argument disappeared when his lawyer, Jonathan Libby, took to the lectern. Chief Justice John Roberts, who had earlier pushed Verrilli on whether Congress could criminalize lying about obtaining a high school diploma, jumped all over Libby, a deputy federal public defender in California.

"What is the First Amendment value in a lie, pure lie?" asked Roberts.

The question, which came less than a minute into Libby's argument, seemed to knock him off balance. "Just a pure lie? There can be a number of values," he answered. "There is the value of personal autonomy."

"The value of what?" said Roberts.

"Personal autonomy," Libby repeated.

"What does that mean?" pressed the chief.

"Well, that we get to, we get to exaggerate and create ... ," Libby tried to answer.

"No, not exaggerate, lie," Roberts corrected him.

Libby offered up Samuel Clemens' use of the pen name Mark Twain as one such "persona" that is really just a lie about one's personal story and identity.

"Well, but that was for literary purposes," retorted Roberts.

Justice Samuel Alito was similarly incredulous, asking, "Do you really think that there is First Amendment value in a bald-faced lie about a purely factual statement that a person makes about himself because that person would like to create a particular persona?"

"Yes, Your Honor, so long as it doesn't cause imminent harm to another person or imminent harm to a government function," Libby said.

Some minutes later, Kennedy, who had seemed very much on Libby's side in the first half of the argument, appeared to fall off the bandwagon. "[I]t's a matter of common sense that it seems to me that [lying about receiving a military honor] demeans the medal," he said.

But it was Justice Elena Kagan who may have delivered the knockout blow to Libby, even if most of her questions leaned toward his case. "What truthful speech will this statute chill?" she asked.

"Your Honor, it's not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech," Libby said. "We certainly concede that one typically knows whether or not one has won a medal or not."

"So, boy, I mean, that's a big concession, Mr. Libby," Kagan replied.

On rebuttal, the solicitor general made the most of that concession, but not before Kagan gave him a hard time, too. She asked if the government can criminalize deliberate falsehoods about extramarital affairs if the law is drawn narrowly and specifically enough. "The government has a strong interest in the sanctity of the family, the stability of the family, so we're going to prevent everybody from telling lies about their extramarital affairs," she hypothesized.

"That's a hard case," Verrilli admitted, before facing an additional flurry of questions from Sotomayor and Justice Stephen Breyer suggesting their belief that upholding the Stolen Valor Act would lead to laws that chilled speech clearly protected by the First Amendment.

To dispel that concern, Verrilli said, they need look no further than Libby's admission just moments earlier. The defendant's own lawyer, the solicitor general said, "conceded that this statute chills nothing."

Also on HuffPost:

Get Alerts Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!

View the original article here

Stolen Valor Act on Supreme Court: lying about being a hero a right?

When Xavier Alvarez stood up and were based on a local water district meeting in July 2007 said, he had no idea that he was about to commit a federal crime.

"I am a retired Marine of 25 years," he told the other Board members in Pomona, California "I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987 I received the Congressional Medal of Honor. I have many times wounded by the same guy. I'm still around.

In the most social situations, such declarations interested nods, adoring smiles and maybe heart-felt thanks for his gallant service to elicit the nation.

But it turns out that Mr. Alvarez never served a day in the u.s. Army, had never wounded, and-most important – never received the Medal of Honor.

How much do you know about the u.s. Constitution? A quiz.

After his false claim was exposed, turn up the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Alvarez was soon sued for allegedly violating the stolen Valor Act of 2005, a right that it makes a federal crime to falsely claim to have gotten a military medal.

His lawyer attacked the indictment as a violation of the first amendment, arguing that Americans a free-speech rightly have a false and outrageous allegations about himself without facing criminal prosecution of a Government truth squad.

A federal judge upheld the indictment, but an appellate Court U.S. reversed.

On Wednesday the case to the Supreme Court, where arrives Alvarez the justices are being asked to decide whether the stolen Valor Act unconstitutional regulation of freedom of expression or an acceptable effort by the Government to punish an alleged liar.

The high court has never directly addresses the issue of lying about military awards, and it is not clear how the justices may decide.

The Supreme Court has a number of categories of speech that are full first amendment protection recognised unworthy. They include obscenity, libel and slander, incitement to imminent harm, and fraud. In each of these areas causes the underlying speech a concrete damage.

Critics of the stolen Valor Act say that it requires no underlying injury. The false information claiming after receiving a medal can be penalized. These critics suggest the best remedy for such false statements are not criminal punishment but more speech, particularly truthful speech exposes the lie.

The Obama administration is urging the Court to maintain the restriction as a valid regulation of a separate type false speech that important constitutional value is missing.

Alvarez has never declared that the Court counters that such false statements are unworthy of constitutional protection. His lawyer says that the Government position marks a radical departure from free speech principles which can lead to sanctions against those who use hyperbole, exaggeration, or engage in satire.

"For good or bad, right or wrong, everybody lies. Xavier Alvarez is no exception. He told a bunch of blunders, "wrote the lawyer, Deputy Federal Public Defender Alvarez Jonathan Libby, in his letter to the Court.

"Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio and cocktail party have always thought to be puffery than the realm of Government to reach and pass without fear of criminal penalty," said Mr. Libby.

The U.S. Solicitor General's Office disagrees, arguing that the stolen Valor Act is aimed to an important goal and that the eng is aimed to achieve that goal.

"The Government has sent a message to the public that the military decorations receiver is approved by the Government as part of a select group to convey," wrote Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in his letter to the Court. "It undermines that purpose … statistical effect of false claims by diluting the message of the prestige and honor medals".

The law would punish only those who knowingly make a false claim of a coin are issued, said Mr. Verrilli. A person is unlikely to make such a claim from confusion or accidentally, he said.

"Content-based restrictions on actual false statements are consistent with the first amendment if they are supported by a strong government interest and sufficient ' breather ' for fully secure voice offer," Verrilli said the briefing.

Alvarez the lawyer, Mr. Libby, openly admits that his client is a liar. But he says that Alvarez was nailed to the pillory in his community as an "idiot" and a "jerk" after his false statements were exposed.

Libby says Americans lie all the time in social situations and research that if his client loses his case, the Government may soon get the accuracy of a wider range of funny statements.

"Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have played professional hockey for the Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he claimed to have been married to a Mexican starlet whose appearance in public causing paparazzi to swoon. He lied when he claimed to be of an engineer. He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American Ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and when he said that he was shot going back to grab the American flag, "said Libby in his letter.

What is the damage, Libby asked in his letter. There is no evidence that anyone is on Alvarez de false assertions about hockey or military feats.

"The Government interest in the protection of the reputation of military medals is legitimate, but not compelling," said Libby. "False claimants cannot tarnish the reputation of medal-winners."

"The Government wants to create a new test-completely unmoored from precedents of this Court," said Libby.

"Falsehoods are valuable for countless reasons: in the refining of truth in the expression of personal autonomy and in the wheels of social interaction, greasing" Libby said. "More than that, there is a realm of harmless puffery, chat and generally considered to be outside the control of the Government."

How much do you know about the u.s. Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates of CSMonitor.com directly in your mailbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

In case of stolen Valor Act, Supreme Court debates when crimes lies can be

WASHINGTON--The Supreme Court appeared divided over whether to strike on Wednesday morning down a federal law that makes it a crime for a person to lie about receiving military honors.

In 2007, Xavier Alvarez, an elected member of a Los Angeles-area water board, introduced himself at a public meeting as a retired Marine. "Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor," he added for the record. Both statements were lies--and the latter he would find out, when the FBI came looking for him, had recently been made a federal crime.

The Stolen Valor Act, passed by Congress in 2006, states that "whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both." Alvarez would become the first person convicted under the act.

He appealed his conviction on the ground that the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment protections for free speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2010, reversing the lower court agreed and striking down the act. Since the Supreme Court United States v. Alvarez consented to hear this past fall, another appeals court has upheld the act, creating a split among the circuits.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, told the justices on Wednesday that the 9th Circuit's fears of a society where any knowing falsehood could be criminalized were unfounded. The Stolen Valor Act prohibits only a "carefully limited and narrowly drawn category or calculated factual falsehoods" regarding military honors, Verrilli said at the start of his presentation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor then wondered about a hypothetical Viet Nam War protester who holds up a sign that reads, "I won a Purple Heart--for killing babies." If the protester knew his statement to be false, Sotomayor asked, "Is that person, if he's not a veteran having received the medal, is he liable under this act?"

If a reasonable observer would see the sign as "political theater," Verrilli answered, then "it's not within the scope of the statute, and it wouldn't be subject to liability."

But, Verrilli continued, "this Court has said in numerous contexts, numerous factual contexts, that the calculated falsehood has no First Amendment value for its own sake."

"It has said it often, but always in context where it is well understood that speech can injure," responded Justice Anthony Kennedy, pointing to defamation and fraud actions. "I think it's a sweeping proposition to say that there's no value to falsity," he went on. "Falsity is a way in which we contrast what is false and what is true."

But Alvarez's groin and others implicated under the Stolen Valor Act, Justice Antonin Scalia said. do cause injury "[T] here's harm to those courageous men and women who receive the decorations," said Scalia. "Their service is demeaned when everybody says, ' I served in the armed forces. '"

Sotomayor disagreed. "[Y] ou can't really believe that a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she receives because someone's fraudulently claiming that they got one," she said. "They don't think less of the medal. We're reacting to the fact that we're offended by the thought that someone's claiming an honor they didn't receive. "

"So, where's the harm outside of the emotional reaction?" she asked. "And I'm not minimizing it. I, too, take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true. "

Throughout Verrilli's presentation, Scalia seemed to be the lone supporter or the Stolen Valor Act unambiguous, going so far as to declare flatly, "I believe that there is no First Amendment value in falsehood." The justice's clear intent to uphold the act comes in some contrast to his votes in recent years to strike down, on First Amendment grounds, a federal ban on dogfighting videos, a California ban on the sale of violent video games and a jury verdict against funeral picketers. Scalia's son Matthew served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.

But whatever lead Alvarez had at the end of the solicitor General's argument disappeared when his lawyer, Jonathan Libby, took to the lectern. Chief Justice John Roberts, who had earlier pushed Verrilli on whether Congress could criminalize lying about obtaining a high school diploma, jumped all over Libby, a deputy federal public defender in California.

"What is the First Amendment value in a lie, pure lie?" asked Roberts.

The question, which came less than a minute into seemed to knock him off balance argument, Libby's. "Just a pure lie? There can be a number of values, "he answered. "There is the value of personal autonomy."

"The value of what?" said Roberts.

"Personal autonomy," Libby repeated.

"What does that mean?" pressed the chief.

"Well, that we get to, we get to exaggerate and create ...," Libby tried to answer.

"No, not exaggerate, lie," Roberts corrected him.

Libby offered up Samuel Clemens ' use of the pen name Mark Twain as one such "persona" that is really just a lie about one's personal story and identity.

"Well, but that was for literary purposes," retorted Roberts.

Justice Samuel Alito was similarly incredulous, asking, "Do you really think that there is value in a First Amendment-faced lie about a purely factual bald statement that a person makes about himself because that person would like to create a particular persona?"

"Yes, Your Honor, so long as it doesn't cause imminent harm to another person or imminent harm to a government function," Libby said.

Some minutes later, Kennedy, who had seemed very much on Libby's side in the first half of the argument, appeared to fall off the bandwagon. "[I] t's a matter of common sense that it seems to me that [lying about receiving a military honor] demeans the medal," he said.

But it was Justice Elena Kagan who may have delivered the knockout blow to Libby, even if most of her questions leaned toward his case. "What will this statute chill truthful speech?" she asked.

"Your Honor, it's not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech," Libby said. "We certainly concede that one typically knows whether or not one has won a medal or not."

"So, boy, I mean, that's a big concession, Mr. Libby," Kagan replied.

On rebuttal, the solicitor general made the most of that concession, but not before Kagan gave him a hard time, too. She asked if the government can criminalize extramarital affairs if the deliberate falsehoods about law is drawn narrowly and specifically enough. "The government has a strong interest in the sanctity of the family, the stability of the family, so we're going to prevent everybody from telling lies about their extramarital affairs," she hypothesized.

"That's a hard case," Verrilli admitted, before facing an additional flurry of questions from Sotomayor and Justice Stephen Breyer upholding the Stolen Valor Act suggesting their belief that would lead to laws that chilled speech clearly protected by the First Amendment.

To will dispel that concern, Verrilli said, they need look no further than Libby's admission just moments earlier. The defendant's own lawyer, the solicitor general said, "conceded that this statute chills nothing."

Also on HuffPost:

Get Alerts Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!

View the original article here