Suing government over credit reports
United States v. Bormes
In brief
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Little Tucker Act does not remove the federal government's protection from Fair Credit Reporting Act damages claims, wiped out the appeals court's ruling, and sent the case back.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · November 13, 2012 · Opinion by Justice Scalia
- What it’s about
- James Bormes sought damages from the United States under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Supreme Court ruled that the Little Tucker Act does not remove the government’s protection from those claims.
- Who it affects
- People seeking Fair Credit Reporting Act damages from the federal government cannot rely on the Little Tucker Act to overcome the government's protection from those claims.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
It wiped out the appeals court’s ruling (vacated it) and sent the case back to the Federal Circuit (remanded), without deciding whether the FCRA itself allows such a suit.
The Little Tucker Act was the possible basis for Bormes's effort to collect Fair Credit Reporting Act damages from the United States.
Question presented
Does the Little Tucker Act waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for claims of damages arising from violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act?
What the Court decided
Holding
The Little Tucker Act does not waive the Government’s sovereign immunity with respect to FCRA damages actions. 626 F. 3d 574, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
What's next
The Federal Circuit gets the case back for another look. Whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act itself permits Bormes's damages suit remains unresolved.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Bormes
Opinion added: Bormes
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.