United States v. Bormes
133 S. Ct. 12
| SCOTUS | 2012Background
- Bormes, an attorney, sued the United States in district court for damages under FCRA for an electronic Pay.gov receipt displaying last 4 digits of his card and expiration date.
- District Court dismissed, holding FCRA lacks explicit waiver of sovereign immunity for damages against the Government.
- Federal Circuit vacated and held that the Little Tucker Act provides consent to sue because FCRA can be read to mandate government compensation.
- Court granted certiorari to decide whether Little Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity for FCRA damages and how FCRA's remedial scheme interacts with Tucker Act.
- The opinion analyzes whether a statute with its own detailed remedial framework (FCRA) precludes additional remedies under the Tucker Act.
- Court holds that Little Tucker Act does not waive immunity for FCRA damages and that FCRA’s own remedies govern, displacing Tucker Act jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Little Tucker Act waive sovereign immunity for FCRA damages? | Bormes; Little Tucker Act provides consent to suit. | United States; FCRA damages fall outside Tucker Act without explicit waiver. | No; Little Tucker Act does not waive immunity. |
| Does FCRA's self-executing remedial scheme exclude Tucker Act remedies? | FCRA can be read to permit damages against the government under Tucker Act. | FCRA provides exclusive remedial framework; Tucker Act cannot supplement. | Yes; FCRA's remedial scheme excludes Tucker Act supplementation. |
| May FCRA damages claims be pursued via Tucker Act jurisdiction in district court? | Tucker Act provides general consent for damages actions. | Such jurisdiction is not applicable if FCRA provides a detailed remedy. | No; Tucker Act jurisdiction cannot be used to access damages under FCRA. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U. S. 287 (2009) (discusses scope of Tucker Act consent for claims premised on other law)
- Hinck v. United States, 550 U. S. 501 (2007) (exclusive remedial scheme governs liability when statute provides it)
- United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U. S. 465 (2003) (test for whether a statute can fairly be interpreted asmandating compensation)
- Mitchell II, 463 U. S. 206 (1983) (consent to suit under the Little Tucker Act; framework for jurisdiction)
- United States v. Erika, Inc., 456 U. S. 201 (1982) (statutory schemes with remedial frameworks exclude alternative relief)
- Nichols v. United States, 7 Wall. 122 (1869) (exclusive remedy principle when a special remedy exists)