United States v. Bormes

Background

James Bormes, an attorney, sued the United States after an online federal court payment receipt showed the last four digits and expiration date of his credit card, which he said violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). He sought money damages under FCRA and also relied on the Little Tucker Act to overcome the usual rule that the federal government cannot be sued unless it agrees. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of a clear waiver of the United States’ immunity, the Federal Circuit disagreed and allowed the case to proceed, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the jurisdictional question.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Little Tucker Act can be used to waive the United States’ immunity for damages when a statute like FCRA already sets out its own detailed judicial remedy. The Justices held that when Congress provides a specific, self-contained remedial scheme in a statute, that scheme controls and the Little Tucker Act cannot be layered on top to create a separate waiver. The opinion explains that allowing the Tucker Act to fill gaps in such statutes would upset Congress’s carefully drawn limits. The Court did not decide whether FCRA itself waives the government’s immunity; it left that question for the Seventh Circuit to resolve on remand.

Real world impact

People who want money damages from the federal government under laws that include their own remedies must rely on the waiver language and procedures in those laws. Plaintiffs cannot bypass a statute’s limits by invoking the Little Tucker Act. The case is sent back to the Seventh Circuit to determine whether FCRA itself permits suing the United States.