| United States v. Bormes | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 2, 2012 Decided November 13, 2012 | |
| Full case name | United States v. James X. Bormes |
| Docket no. | 11-192 |
| Citations | 568 U.S. 6 (more) 133 S. Ct. 12; 184 L. Ed. 2d 317; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 8705; 81 U.S.L.W. 4007 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Motion to dismiss granted, 638 F. Supp. 2d 958 (N.D. Ill. 2009); vacated, 626 F. 3d 574, 578 (Fed. Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 565 U.S. 1153 (2012). |
| Holding | |
| The Little Tucker Act does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to damages actions for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (Little Tucker Act); 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (Fair Credit Reporting Act) | |
United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Little Tucker Act, which provides jurisdiction to federal courts for certain claims brought against the federal government, does not apply to lawsuits brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).[1]
The Court characterized the Little Tucker Act as merely "gap-filling" and, therefore, superseded when a statute authorizing a claim for damages set forth its own specific enforcement procedures, as did the FCRA. Otherwise, the Court believed, the Little Tucker Act would broadly impose a waiver of sovereign immunity under detailed statutes that did not provide for it. The Court directed the lower court to address on remand whether the FCRA itself authorized a claim for damages against the government for violating its provisions.