United States v. Bormes
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Oct 2, 2012
|Nov 13, 2012||9-0||Scalia||OT 2012|
Holding: The Little Tucker Act does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity with respect to Fair Credit Reporting Act damages actions.
Plain English Holding: After James Bormes paid a fee to the United States over the Internet, he argued that the receipt displayed too much information about his credit card. When he tried to sue the United States for damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the federal government countered that it was immune from lawsuits seeking money. A federal court in Washington agreed with Bormes, concluding that he could sue the United States for money damages under the Little Tucker Act, which allows lawsuits like the one brought by Bormes to go forward in the federal trial courts around the country. The government asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the Court reversed. It held that the Little Tucker Act did not apply to cases brought under the FCRA, and it sent the case to another federal court for it to decide whether the suit should still go forward under that Act.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on November 13, 2012.
- Opinion analysis: Court rebuffs Federal Circuit laxity on federal sovereign immunity (Ronald Mann)
- Government may be immune on credit revelation (Lyle Denniston)
- Argument recap: Court skeptical of government liability under FCRA (Ronald Mann)
- Argument preview: Government fights battle against plain language in FCRA dispute (Ronald Mann)
- Three new cases granted (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)