Cite as: 540 U. S. 614 (2004)
Opinion of the Court
sustained by any person," with that language followed by the guarantee that "in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000." S. 3418, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., § 303(c)(1) (1974). Although the provision for general damages would have covered presumed damages, see n. 3, supra, this language was trimmed from the final statute, subject to any later revision that might be recommended by the Commission. The deletion of "general damages" from the bill is fairly seen, then, as a deliberate elimination of any possibility of imputing harm and awarding presumed damages.6 The deletion thus precludes any hope of a sound interpretation of entitlement to recovery without reference to actual damages.7
Finally, Doe's reading is open to the objection that no purpose is served by conditioning the guarantee on a person's being entitled to recovery. As Doe treats the text, Congress could have accomplished its object simply by providing that the Government would be liable to the individual for actual damages "but in no case . . . less than the sum of $1,000" plus fees and costs. Doe's reading leaves the reference to entitlement to recovery with no job to do, and it accordingly accomplishes nothing.8
6 While theoretically there could also have been a third category, that of "nominal damages," it is implausible that Congress intended tacitly to recognize a nominal damages remedy after eliminating the explicit reference to general damages.
7 Justice Scalia does not join this paragraph or footnote 8.
8 Justice Ginsburg responds that our reading is subject to a similar criticism: "Congress more rationally [c]ould have written: 'actual damages . . . but in no case shall a person who proves such damages [in any amount] receive less than $1,000.' " Post, at 630. Congress's use of the entitlement phrase actually contained in the statute, however, is explained by drafting history. The first bill passed by the Senate authorized recovery of both actual and general damages. See supra, at 622 and this page. At that point, when discussing eligibility for the $1,000 guarantee, it was reasonable to refer to plaintiffs with either sort of damages by the general term "a person entitled to recovery." When subsequent amendment limited recovery to actual damages by eliminating the general, no one appar-
623
Page: Index Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007