to pursue damage on privacy violations. The headline is unclear and misleading - the Supreme Court denied only claims based on special factors laid out in the "Bivens" case.
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2008/0responses/2008-1043.resp.htmlQUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Privacy Act's comprehensive statutory scheme governing disclosures of personal information, and the likelihood of judicial intrusion into sensitive intelligence and national security matters,
constitute special factors that preclude creation of a cause of action for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for the alleged disclosure of petitioner's identity as an undercover Central Intelligence Agency operative.
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2008/0responses/2008-1043.resp.htmlAs the court of appeals explained, the Privacy Act established a comprehensive statutory scheme to regu late the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals in agency records. Pet. App. 15a. The Congress that enacted the Privacy Act was well aware of the constitutional privacy and First Amendment implications of collecting and disclosing such information in agency records, and it adopted de tailed remedial provisions that authorize monetary relief in suits against agencies while rejecting the alternative of civil actions against individual federal officials. See pp. 2-4, supra. Moreover, the court of appeals correctly recognized that petitioners' claims "are all claims alleg ing harm from the improper disclosure of information subject to the Privacy Act's protections," and, for that reason, petitioners have a potential remedy under the Act because they allege that Armitage disclosed to Novak information from agency records. Pet. App. 15a- 16a, 20a (emphasis added). Congress's decision to au thorize damages actions only against federal agencies for unlawful disclosures of Privacy Act information bal ances numerous factors, including the need for a civil remedy and the in terrorem effect of civil suits against individual government officials. And, because "Con gre
...
First, as the court of appeals explained,
petitioners' underlying premise is incorrect. Petitioners themselves concede that Ms. Wilson has a possible damages claim under the Privacy Act. Pet. App. 20a; cf. C.A. App. 31 (alleging that Armitage acknowledged learning of Ms. Wilson's CIA employment from a State Department memorandum, which Armitage subsequently disclosed to Novak).ss is in a far better position than a court to evaluate the impact of a new species of litigation
federal employees" and possesses "institutional competence in crafting appropriate relief," judicial deference is due to the balance that Congress has struck.