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