The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions in three cases this morning:
Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, No. 10-1024: The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U. S. C. §552a, contains requirements for the management of confidential records held by Executive Branch agencies. If an agency fails to comply with those requirements in a way found to be “intentional or willful,” the United States is liable for “actual damages.” §552a(g)(4)(A). Respondent claimed that certain disclosures of confidential medical information by the Social Security Administration to the Department of Transportation (made in connection with an investigation into his pilot’s license) violated the Privacy Act and had caused him mental and emotional distress. The district court ruled that such distress was not included in the “actual damages” for which the United States was liable, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. Today, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the term “actual damages,” as used in the Privacy Act, does not include damages for mental or emotional distress.
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Vartelas v. Holder, No. 10-1211: Petitioner became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1989. He pleaded guilty to a felony in 1994, and served a prison sentence of four months for that offense. He traveled to Greece in 2003 to visit his parents. On his return to the United States a week later, he was treated as an inadmissible alien and placed in removal proceedings. Under the law governing at the time of 1994 guilty plea, an alien in his situation could travel abroad for brief periods without jeopardizing his resident alien status. In 1996, however, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which effectively precluded foreign travel by lawful permanent residents who had a conviction. Under IIRIRA, such aliens who travel abroad and return may be permanently removed from the United States. Accordingly, the immigration authorities, affirmed by the Second Circuit, held that petitioner was subject to removal. Today the Court reversed, holding that the impact of petitioner’s travel abroad on his permanent resident status is to be determined not by IIRIRA, but by the legal regime in force at the time of his conviction.
The Court’s decision is available here.
Setser v. United States, No. 10-7387: When petitioner was indicted in state court on drug charges, the state also moved to revoke the probation term that he was then serving. At about the same time, he pleaded guilty to federal drug charges, and the federal court imposed a sentence to run consecutively to any state sentence imposed for the probation violation, but concurrently with any state sentence imposed on the new drug charge. While his federal appeal was pending, the state court sentenced him to 5 years for the probation violation and 10 years for the drug charge, but ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the federal sentence, holding that the district court had authority to order a sentence consecutive to an anticipated state sentence, and that the sentence here was reasonable. Today the Court affirmed, agreeing that the district court had discretion to order the sentence it imposed.
The Court’s decision is available here.
