October Term 2003 · Docket 02-1377
Does Privacy Act Adverse Effect Require Actual Damages?
the side that brought the case seeks emotional distress damages. The government argues actual financial loss is required.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Campbell argued emotional distress is an adverse effect.
Mr. Stewart argued adverse effect requires actual damages.
Justice Kennedy questioned the government interpretation.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the Privacy Act definition of adverse effect. the side that brought the case claims emotional distress qualifies. The government insists actual damages are necessary.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 49-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 3, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-9
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants emotional distress damages.
The government wants to deny emotional distress damages.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 49-1
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues adverse effect includes emotional distress.
The government argues adverse effect requires actual financial loss.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 49-1
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked about absurd results of the government view.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-9
Why it matters
This defines privacy violation remedies. It determines who receives compensation for emotional harm. It shapes government accountability standards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 49-1
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 49-1
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.