Opinion ID: 51800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Camp’s Privacy Act Claims

Text: For sure, Camp got a renewed GFL, but defendants’ refusal to process his GFL application was only one of his claims. Camp’s complaint made substantive claims and requested additional meaningful relief beyond his request that defendants process his current GFL application without his SSN. For example, Camp’s complaint on its face seeks prospective relief, such as: (1) a declaratory judgment that the GFL application form violates the Privacy Act; (2) an injunction prohibiting defendants from requiring a GFL applicant’s SSN; and (3) an injunction requiring defendants to conform the GFL application form to Section 8 7(b) of the Privacy Act. The district court wholly failed to address any of Camp’s substantive claims about the application form and process itself. Thus, the district court incorrectly concluded that it could not grant Camp additional meaningful relief. Moreover, the complaint alleges that Camp already held a GFL and was seeking a renewal GFL at the time his application was denied in 2006. Camp, as a repeat applicant for GFLs, has a concrete, legally cognizable interest in the GFL application process, and he has alleged that both the application form and process violate the Privacy Act. Because GFLs are valid for only five years, see Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-129, Camp will have to continually renew his license and fill out the GFL application form. Thus, there is a sufficient imminence of future harm. See Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1208 (11th Cir. 2006). Defendant Hitchens also argues that the Department of Public Safety’s revisions to its GFL application form rendered Camp’s prospective claims moot. We disagree. First, as outlined earlier, the district court declared the case moot only because Camp received a GFL, not because of the revised form. Second, Camp submitted two affidavits by other GFL applicants that rebut the contention that a revised GFL application form and process are actually in effect. Given that Hitchens submitted the revised application form with his motion to dismiss, 9 Camp’s two affidavits in reply thereto, if anything, create a material fact issue as to whether the original form remains in circulation or has been replaced. Accordingly, Hitchens’s revised form does not moot the case either. Third, even if we assume that only a revised GFL application form is now used, Camp’s complaint still alleges, and he has consistently argued, that the GFL application (in whatever form) violates Section 7(b) of the Privacy Act. Although the revised form makes SSN disclosure optional, Section 7(b) of the Privacy Act provides that any Federal, State, or local government agency that requests an individual to disclose his SSN shall inform that individual not only “whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary,” but also “by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.” 88 Stat. at 1909. Camp thus argues that the revised form continues to violate Section 7(b) because it does not disclose the authority for making the optional SSN request or all uses contemplated for the SSNs. Thus, Camp’s Privacy Act claims are not moot.