Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with a familiar, if elusive, foe -- legislative intent -- when considering whether a California man should be compensated after the government violated his privacy by disclosing his personal medical history. The justices appeared torn over the meaning of two fuzzy words in federal law -- "actual damages" -- and whether Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are covered under the Privacy Act. "The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," said Chief Justice John Roberts to Cooper's lawyer.
@highlight
The court tries to figure out what Congress intended by the words "actual damages"
@highlight
Stanmore Cooper says the words cover mental and emotional distress
@highlight
The government argues they are aimed at monetary damages
@highlight
Cooper says the public disclosure of his HIV status caused him harm
Getting that right in the justices' minds will mean the difference between whether @placeholder or the government ultimately prevails.