Jeremy Meyers v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wi
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16515
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Meyers used his credit card at three retail stores owned by the Oneida Tribe and received electronically printed receipts showing more than the last five card digits and the card expiration date, which he alleges violated FACTA (15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)).
- Meyers filed a putative class action in the Eastern District of Wisconsin seeking damages for FACTA violations against the Oneida Tribe.
- The Tribe moved to dismiss, asserting tribal sovereign immunity and arguing Meyers lacked Article III standing; the district court treated the motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge and dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds.
- The court of appeals considered whether to remand for a Spokeo-based standing analysis but instead resolved a different threshold issue: whether FACTA unequivocally abrogates tribal sovereign immunity.
- The Seventh Circuit held Congress did not clearly and unequivocally abrogate tribal sovereign immunity in FACTA, so the Tribe is immune and the suit cannot proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing after Spokeo | Spokeo was not pressed on appeal; implied that statutory violation (FACTA) suffices | Tribe argued Meyers lacked injury-in-fact | Court declined to decide standing now and resolved immunity first; left Spokeo question unresolved here |
| Whether FACTA’s definition of “person” abrogates tribal immunity | Meyers: FACTA’s term “any … government” includes Indian tribes, so Congress abrogated immunity | Tribe: FACTA does not unequivocally mention tribes; ambiguities resolve in favor of immunity | Held: FACTA does not clearly and unequivocally abrogate tribal sovereign immunity |
| Whether treating tribes as “governments” in Bormes controls here | Meyers: Bormes supports reading “any government” to include tribes | Tribe: Bormes involved the United States and was dicta as to tribes; not dispositive | Held: Bormes dicta does not supply the unequivocal statement required to abrogate tribal immunity |
| Appropriate threshold to decide first | Meyers wanted standing resolved first | Tribe urged dismissal on immunity grounds | Held: Court may choose among threshold issues; deciding immunity conserves resources and is proper here |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014) (tribes retain historic sovereign immunity and abrogation must be unequivocal)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (Article III injury-in-fact requires concrete and particularized harm; bare procedural violations may be insufficient)
- Bormes v. United States, 759 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2014) (interpreting FCRA to waive United States’ immunity; discussion of "any government" was not dispositive regarding tribes)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) (Congress must clearly abrogate tribal immunity; abrogation will not be implied)
- Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223 (1989) (abrogation requires unmistakably clear congressional intent)