October Term 2011 · Docket 10-1024
Does the Privacy Act allow emotional distress damages against the government?
The dispute centers on whether a federal employee can recover emotional distress damages from the government under the Privacy Act.
Verified source milestones
- — 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
The government argued Congress must clearly waive sovereign immunity for emotional distress.
The employee argued the statute protects against recognized common law harms.
Justice Ginsburg questioned whether emotional distress qualifies as an actual injury.
Justice Sotomayor asked why emotional distress differs from actual injury.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-40 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-50 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-24 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 36-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 36-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 22-36
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of the Privacy Act. It asks if the statute waives sovereign immunity for non-pecuniary harms. The lower court allowed the claim to proceed. The government seeks to limit damages to pecuniary losses.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 30, 2011.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to limit damages to pecuniary losses.
The employee wants the Court to allow emotional distress damages.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
What each side says
The government argues the statute requires clear text for non-pecuniary waivers.
The employee argues the statute protects against common law emotional harms.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked what actual damages mean under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Justice Ginsburg asked if emotional distress constitutes an actual injury.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-40 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-50 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-24 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 36-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 36-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 22-36
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal liability for privacy violations. It determines whether citizens can recover for non-pecuniary harms. The outcome shapes the balance between government accountability and sovereign immunity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
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 10, lines 32-40 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-50 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-24 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 36-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 36-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 22-36
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 24, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 38-12 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 38-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-24
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.