Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Jennifer Fry visits with Peter and Frankie Smith to discuss their lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. PLF took on the Smith's fight after the Corps designated a dry creek bed or "arroyo" on their property a "water of the United States" subject to federal control. The Smiths caught the Corps' attention when they began to clean up the arroyo by removing dead trees and trash which the prior owner had dumped there. As a result of the Corps' actions, the Smiths cannot continue their maintenance efforts without fear of being prosecuted as "knowing violators" under the Clean Water Act. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an expansive definition of "waters of the United States." Nonetheless, the Corps continues to flaunt the law by asserting control over properties, like the Smiths, that are bone dry and do not meet the legal standard for the Corps to assert jurisdiction. PLF's lawsuit asks the court to review the Corps' actions and to affirm that there are meaningful limits to the agency's regulatory power.
Justia.com Opinion Summary: Attorney Bormes alleged that the electronic receipt he received when paying his client’s federal-court filing fee on Pay.gov included the last four digits of his credit card number and the card’s expiration date, in willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U. S. C.1681. He sought damages and asserted juris¬diction under 1681p, and under the Little Tucker Act, which grants district courts jurisdiction for claims “against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded . . . upon . . . any Act of Congress,” 28 U. S. C. 1346(a)(2). The district court dismissed, holding that FCRA did not explicitly waive sovereign immunity. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the Little Tucker Act provided consent to suit because the underlying statute. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded. The Little Tucker Act does not waive sovereign immunity with respect to FCRA damages actions, but, with its companion statute, the Tucker Act, provides the government’s consent to suit for certain money-damages claims “premised on other sources of law,” Those general terms are displaced when a law imposing monetary liability has its own judicial remedies. Because FCRA enables claimants to pursue monetary relief in court without resort to the Tucker Act, only its own text can determine whether Congress unequivocally intended to impose the statute’s damages liability on the government.
Opinion (Justice Scalia) NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 .
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
UNITED STATES v. BORMES
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit
No. 11–192. Argued October 2, 2012—Decided November 13, 2012
Respondent Bormes, an attorney, filed suit against the Federal Government, alleging that the electronic receipt he received when paying his client’s federal-court filing fee on Pay.gov included the last four digits of his credit card number and the card’s expiration date, in willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U. S. C. §1681 et seq. He sought damages under §1681n and asserted jurisdiction under §1681p, as well as under the Little Tucker Act, which grants district courts “original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of . . . [a]ny. . . civil action or claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded . . . upon . . . any Act of Congress,” 28 U. S. C. §1346(a)(2). In dismissing the suit, the District Court held that FCRA did not explicitly waive the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity. Bormes appealed to the Federal Circuit, which vacated the District Court’s decision, holding that the Little Tucker Act provided the Government’s consent to suit because the underlying statute—FCRA—could fairly be interpreted as mandating a right of recovery in damages.
Held: The Little Tucker Act does not waive the Government’s sovereign immunity with respect to FCRA damages actions. Pp. 4–11.
(a) The Little Tucker Act and its companion statute, the Tucker Act, provide the Federal Government’s consent to suit for certain money-damages claims “premised on other sources of law,” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U. S. 287 . The general terms of the Tucker Acts are displaced, however, when a law imposing monetary liability has its own judicial remedies. In that event, the specific remedial scheme establishes the exclusive framework for determining the scope of liability under the statute. See, e.g., Hinck v. United States, 550 U. S. 501 . Pp. 4–7.
(b) FCRA is such a statute. Its detailed remedial scheme sets “out a carefully circumscribed, time-limited, plaintiff-specific” cause of action, and “also precisely define[s] the appropriate forum,” 550 U. S., at 507. FCRA authorizes aggrieved consumers to hold “any person” who “willfully” or “negligent[ly]” fails to comply with the Act’s requirements liable for specified damages, 15 U. S. C. §§1681n(a), 1681o; requires enforcement claims to be brought within a specified limitations period, §1681p; and provides that jurisdiction will lie “in any appropriate United States district court, without regard to the amount in controversy,” ibid. Because FCRA enables claimants to pursue monetary relief in court without resort to the Tucker Act, only its own text can determine whether Congress unequivocally intended to impose the statute’s damages liability on the Federal Government. Pp. 7–10.
626 F. 3d 574, vacated and remanded.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.
