Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

The Senate Judiciary Committee has concluded its hearing on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Transcripts of previous live blogs are available at this link.
Our full coverage of the nomination is available at this link.

United States v. Bormes

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
11-192 Fed. Cir. Oct 2, 2012
Tr.Aud.
Nov 13, 2012 9-0 Scalia OT 2012
 
Share:

Holding: The Little Tucker Act does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity with respect to Fair Credit Reporting Act damages actions.

Plain English Holding: After James Bormes paid a fee to the United States over the Internet, he argued that the receipt displayed too much information about his credit card. When he tried to sue the United States for damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the federal government countered that it was immune from lawsuits seeking money. A federal court in Washington agreed with Bormes, concluding that he could sue the United States for money damages under the Little Tucker Act, which allows lawsuits like the one brought by Bormes to go forward in the federal trial courts around the country. The government asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the Court reversed. It held that the Little Tucker Act did not apply to cases brought under the FCRA, and it sent the case to another federal court for it to decide whether the suit should still go forward under that Act.

Plain English Summary:

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on November 13, 2012.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

Holding: The Little Tucker Act does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity with respect to Fair Credit Reporting Act damages actions.   Plain English Holding: After James Bormes paid a fee to the United States over the Internet, he argued that the receipt displayed too much information about his credit card. When he tried to sue the United States for damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the federal government countered that it was immune from lawsuits seeking money. A federal court in Washington agreed with Bormes, concluding that he could sue the United States for money damages under the Little Tucker Act, which allows lawsuits like the one brought by Bormes to go forward in the federal trial courts around the country. The government asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the Court reversed. It held that the Little Tucker Act did not apply to cases brought under the FCRA, and it sent the case to another federal court for it to decide whether the suit should still go forward under that Act.   JudgmentVacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on November 13, 2012.
Term Snapshot
Awards