## Facts

- Stanmore Cawthon Cooper, a longtime licensed pilot, was diagnosed with HIV.
- On multiple FAA medical certificate applications, Cooper intentionally failed to disclose his HIV status to avoid disqualification.
- Cooper separately applied for and received Social Security disability benefits based on his HIV status, disclosing the condition to SSA.
- DOT and SSA conducted “Operation Safe Pilot,” exchanging information to identify medically unfit licensed pilots receiving disability benefits.
- Cooper was identified, investigated, and admitted his nondisclosure to the FAA.
- The FAA revoked his pilot certificate; Cooper pleaded guilty to making false statements and received a fine and probation.
- Cooper sued FAA, SSA, and DOT under the Privacy Act of 1974, alleging unlawful disclosure of confidential medical information.
- He sought damages primarily for non-pecuniary injuries, including humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, and emotional distress.

## Issues

1. Whether the Privacy Act’s authorization of “actual damages” in 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A) waives federal sovereign immunity for non-pecuniary harms such as mental and emotional distress.
2. Whether, absent proof of economic loss, a plaintiff may recover Privacy Act damages for emotional distress caused by an unlawful disclosure.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit (5–3) and remanded.
- The Court held that “actual damages” in the Privacy Act does not unequivocally include damages for mental or emotional distress.
- Because any ambiguity in a damages remedy must be construed in favor of the sovereign, the statute did not waive sovereign immunity for non-pecuniary harms.
- Cooper, alleging only emotional distress and related dignitary harms without pecuniary loss, could not recover damages under the Act as construed.

## Legal Principles

- Waivers of federal sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text; ambiguities are resolved in favor of immunity.
- The phrase “actual damages” does not have a single settled meaning across statutes and can be ambiguous regarding inclusion of emotional distress.
- When Congress intends to authorize recovery for non-pecuniary harms, it often does so expressly; the absence of explicit non-pecuniary damages language supports a narrower construction.
- Under the Privacy Act’s civil remedies provision, “actual damages” are not available for purely emotional distress absent a clear waiver, effectively limiting recovery to proven pecuniary harm.

## Conclusion

The Court construed the Privacy Act’s “actual damages” remedy narrowly because the statute did not clearly authorize compensation for emotional distress, and sovereign immunity barred expanding liability beyond unambiguous congressional consent.


Fed. Aviation Admin. v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (2012)