United States v. Bormes
568 U.S. 6, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 8705, 184 L. Ed. 2d 317 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a federal statute provides its own precisely drawn, detailed remedial scheme, that scheme is exclusive and supersedes the general waiver of sovereign immunity found in the Little Tucker Act.
Facts:
- James X. Bormes, an attorney, used his personal credit card to pay a $350 federal-court filing fee for a client.
- The payment was processed through Pay.gov, an online payment system used by federal agencies.
- The electronic receipt Bormes received from Pay.gov displayed the last four digits of his credit card number as well as its expiration date.
- The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) prohibits any 'person' from printing both the expiration date and more than the last five digits of a card number on a receipt.
- FCRA's definition of 'person' explicitly includes any 'government or governmental subdivision or agency'.
Procedural Posture:
- James X. Bormes filed a putative class action against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking damages under the FCRA.
- The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that FCRA itself does not contain an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity.
- Bormes (as appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- The United States (as appellee) moved to transfer the appeal to the Seventh Circuit, arguing the Little Tucker Act's jurisdictional grant did not apply.
- The Federal Circuit denied the transfer motion, vacated the District Court's decision, and held that the Little Tucker Act did provide the necessary waiver of sovereign immunity for the FCRA claim.
- The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Little Tucker Act's general waiver of sovereign immunity allow a damages claim against the United States under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a statute that contains its own comprehensive remedial scheme?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. The Little Tucker Act's immunity waiver does not apply because the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) contains its own specific and detailed remedial scheme, which is exclusive. The Little Tucker Act was designed as a 'gap-filler' to provide a judicial remedy for monetary claims against the U.S. where no other such remedy exists. However, when a statute like FCRA creates its own comprehensive cause of action—defining who can sue, for what damages, within what limitations period, and in which court—that specific scheme preempts the more general remedy of the Tucker Act. Plaintiffs cannot 'mix and match' FCRA's liability provisions with the Little Tucker Act's immunity waiver to create an action against the United States. The Federal Circuit erred by applying the 'fair interpretation' test, which is only relevant for determining if a right-granting statute without its own remedy is money-mandating under the Tucker Act, not for a statute that already has a detailed remedial framework.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of statutory exclusivity, clarifying that general jurisdictional statutes like the Tucker Act cannot serve as a backdoor to waive sovereign immunity for claims under specific statutes that have their own enforcement mechanisms. It establishes that if Congress creates a detailed remedial scheme within a statute, the scope of liability, including any waiver of sovereign immunity, must be found within that statute's text alone. This holding significantly limits plaintiffs' ability to sue the federal government under various regulatory statutes, forcing them to demonstrate that the specific statute itself contains an 'unequivocally expressed' waiver of sovereign immunity, rather than relying on the Tucker Act's general waiver.
