United States v. Bormes
The Court ruled that the Little Tucker Act, a general law letting people sue the federal government for certain money claims, cannot be used to sue the government for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, because that credit law already has its own detailed remedy and time limits.
The decision means that whenever Congress writes a law with its own built-in system for lawsuits and damages, courts must look only to that law's own words to decide whether the government can be sued under it — not borrow a separate, more general waiver of the government's immunity from suit.
“The Little Tucker Act is one statute that unequivocally provides the Federal Government’s consent to suit for certain money-damages claims.”
Explains the general role the Little Tucker Act plays in waiving government immunity.
How it got here: A federal trial court dismissed the suit for lack of a waiver of sovereign immunity; the Federal Circuit vacated, finding the Little Tucker Act supplied consent to sue; the government sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
James Bormes, an attorney, paid a federal court filing fee for a client using his credit card through Pay.gov, a government online payment system. The electronic receipt he got back showed the last four digits of his card number and its expiration date, which he said violated a federal law requiring receipts to truncate that information. He sued the federal government for damages under that law.
The question before the Court
Could a lawyer use a general law letting people sue the government for money — the Little Tucker Act — to sue over a credit-report privacy violation, when that privacy law already has its own built-in remedy?
Why it matters
The ruling limits how people can sue the federal government when a specific law already lays out its own remedy. Anyone considering a damages suit against the government for violations of statutes with their own remedial schemes — like consumer-protection or privacy laws — must show that the specific law itself, not a general jurisdictional statute, allows suits against the government.
What changes now
The case goes back to the lower courts, and the Federal Circuit's ruling is undone. The Court sent the case to be transferred to the Seventh Circuit, which must now decide the separate question the Supreme Court did not reach: whether the credit-reporting law itself, on its own terms, allows people to sue the federal government for damages. That question remains open.
What this does not decide
The Court explicitly left open whether the credit-reporting law itself waives the government's immunity from damages suits, sending that question to the Seventh Circuit on remand. This ruling only decides that the separate Little Tucker Act cannot be used to fill that gap.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court explained that the Little Tucker Act and its companion, the Tucker Act, are general laws that let people sue the federal government for certain money claims based on other sources of law, but they don't create rights of their own — they just open a courthouse door.
- The Court identified a key limiting principle: when a law imposing a money obligation on the government already comes with its own detailed system for lawsuits — its own list of who can sue, deadlines, and courts — that specific system replaces the general Tucker Act route, because a detailed, specific law overrides a more general one.
- Applying that principle to a past case, Hinck v. United States, the Court noted it had already held that a precise, detailed statute providing its own forum, deadline, and standard of review is treated as the exclusive route for suits under that law.
- The Court found the credit-reporting law at issue here fits that same pattern: it lets consumers sue any violator for specified damages, sets strict filing deadlines, and names the courts where suits can be brought — all without needing the Little Tucker Act.
- Because the credit-reporting law already supplies a complete, self-contained system for suing over violations, the Court concluded that only the words of that law — not the Little Tucker Act — can determine whether Congress meant to let people sue the government itself for violating it.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Hinck v. United States (550 U. S. 501)
Relies on Hinck's rule that a detailed, specific remedial statute is treated as the exclusive avenue for suit.
Distinguishes White Mountain Apache Tribe (537 U. S. 465)
Says its 'fair interpretation' test doesn't apply once a law already has its own detailed remedy.
Reaffirms Nichols v. United States (7 Wall. 122)
Uses this 1869 case to show extra Court of Claims relief is barred when a precise remedy already exists.