917 F.3d 799
4th Cir.2019Background
- Anthony Robinson sued the U.S. Department of Education under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), alleging the Department furnished or caused consumer-reporting of fraudulent student-loan accounts in his name and failed to properly investigate disputes under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).
- Robinson pleaded causes of action for negligent and willful FCRA violations under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681o and 1681n (seeking damages, costs, and fees).
- The Department moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity because Congress had not unambiguously waived the United States’ immunity under FCRA’s civil-liability provisions.
- The district court granted dismissal, finding no unequivocal waiver and noting absurd consequences if “person” were read to include the federal government (e.g., criminal prosecutions of the U.S., punitive damages exposure).
- Robinson appealed; the Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo whether FCRA unambiguously waives federal sovereign immunity and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCRA’s civil-liability provisions (15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n-1681o) waive the United States’ sovereign immunity | Robinson: FCRA defines “person” to include “government or governmental subdivision or agency,” so the United States is a “person” and subject to §§ 1681n/1681o liability | Government: Sovereign immunity is presumed; waivers must be unequivocal and statutory text does not clearly subject the United States to FCRA’s enforcement provisions | Court: No. The statutory scheme and canons against reading “person” to include the sovereign mean there is no unambiguous waiver; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (recognition of sovereign immunity as common-law background)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782 (sovereign immunity as necessary corollary of sovereignty)
- United States v. Clarke, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 436 (United States not suable of common right)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (presumption of immunity for federal agencies)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (consent to suit is prerequisite to jurisdiction)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed)
- FAA v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (ambiguity defeats claim of waiver for money damages)
- Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (presumption that “person” excludes the sovereign)
- United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600 (interpretation of “person” not to include United States in criminal context)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (conservatism in construing waivers of sovereign immunity)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (limits on abrogation of state sovereign immunity)
- Bormes v. United States, 568 U.S. 6 (illustration of explicit statutory waivers specifying suits against the United States)