A U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., has dismissed a lawsuit filed by former Coast Guard Captain Glenn Sulmasy against the Department of Homeland Security. The case, Sulmasy v. Noem (Civil Action No. 2025-3339), centered on allegations that the Coast Guard improperly disclosed documents related to Sulmasy, causing him significant economic harm. The ruling, issued by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, has implications for how privacy violations under the Privacy Act are interpreted and enforced.
Sulmasy claimed that the Coast Guard's actions led to his professional downfall, including his resignation as president of Nichols College. The case highlights the complexities surrounding privacy rights and the responsibilities of federal agencies in handling personal information.
The dispute arose after a series of investigative articles by CNN in 2023 detailed allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment at the Coast Guard Academy, implicating Sulmasy in the mishandling of sexual assault reports during his tenure at the Academy. Following these reports, Sulmasy claimed he faced backlash that resulted in his termination from various jobs and a loss of future employment opportunities.
In September 2025, Sulmasy filed a lawsuit seeking $10 million in damages, alleging that the Coast Guard's mismanagement of privacy settings allowed unauthorized access to sensitive documents that were later leaked to the media. He argued that this breach of the Privacy Act had a direct adverse effect on his career and reputation.
The court's ruling focused on the legal standards governing Privacy Act claims. Judge Chutkan noted that to succeed under the Privacy Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the agency's actions directly caused the alleged harm. In this case, the court found that Sulmasy could not establish a causal link between the Coast Guard's actions and the economic damages he claimed.
The court ruled, "Plaintiff has failed to establish any 'causal[] link' between the Coast Guard's actions and his economic harm, his Complaint does not state a claim for relief."
Judge Chutkan explained that the Coast Guard's alleged misconfiguration of privacy settings occurred after CNN published its damaging articles about Sulmasy. Therefore, the court found that the agency's actions could not have caused the harm he experienced, as the publication of the articles preceded the security lapse.
The ruling underscores the importance of establishing a clear connection between an agency's actions and the resulting harm in Privacy Act cases. While the court did not address other elements of Sulmasy's claim, the dismissal highlights the challenges individuals face when seeking to hold federal agencies accountable for privacy violations.
This decision may have broader implications for other individuals pursuing similar claims against federal agencies under the Privacy Act. It sets a precedent that emphasizes the need for plaintiffs to demonstrate a direct causal relationship between alleged privacy violations and economic harm.
Moving forward, Sulmasy has the option to appeal the court's decision. However, the success of such an appeal would depend on whether he can present new evidence or arguments that could establish the necessary causal link that the court found lacking in its ruling. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further actions Sulmasy may take.