throbber
(Slip Opinion)
`
`
`
` OCTOBER TERM, 2012
`
`
`Syllabus
`
`1
`
` 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, 337.
`
`
`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 Gov-
`ernment, 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 juris-
`
`diction under §1681p, as well as under the Little Tucker Act, which
`grants district courts “original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Unit-
`
`ed 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 dis-
`missing the suit, the District Court held that FCRA did not explicitly
`waive the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity. Bormes ap-
`pealed to the Federal Circuit, which vacated the District Court’s deci-
`sion, 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, 290. 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 re-
`medial 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`UNITED STATES v. BORMES
`
`
`Syllabus
`
`(b) FCRA is such a statute. Its detailed remedial scheme sets “out
`a carefully circumscribed, time-limited, plaintiff-specific” cause of ac-
`tion, 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 re-
`quirements 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`1
`
`
` NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
`
`
`
` preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
`
` notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
`
` ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
`
`
` that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
`
`
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`_________________
`
` No. 11–192
`_________________
` UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. JAMES X. BORMES
`
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
`
`APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`[November 13, 2012]
` JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
`The Little Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. §1346(a)(2), provides
`
`that “[t]he district courts shall have 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.” We consider whether
`the Little Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of
`the United States with respect to damages actions for
`
`violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15
`U. S. C. §1681 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`I
`
`The Fair Credit Reporting Act has as one of its purposes
`
`to “protect consumer privacy.” Safeco Ins. Co. of America
`v. Burr, 551 U. S. 47, 52 (2007); see 84 Stat. 1128, 15
`U. S. C. §1681. To that end, FCRA provides, among other
`things, that “no person that accepts credit cards or debit
`cards for the transaction of business shall print more than
`
`the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date
`upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of
`the sale or transaction.” §1681c(g)(1) (emphasis added).
`The Act defines “person” as “any individual, partnership,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` UNITED STATES v. BORMES
`
`Opinion of the Court
`corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, gov-
`ernment or governmental subdivision or agency, or other
`entity.” §1681a(b).
`FCRA imposes civil liability for willful or negligent
`
`noncompliance with its requirements: “Any person who
`willfully fails to comply” with the Act “with respect to any
`consumer,” “is liable to that consumer” for actual damages
`or damages “of not less than $100 and not more than
`$1,000,” as well as punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and
`
`costs. §1681n(a); see also §1681o (civil liability for negli-
`gent noncompliance). The Act includes a jurisdictional
`provision, which provides that “[a]n action to enforce any
`liability created under this subchapter may be brought
`in any appropriate United States district court, without
`regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court
`of competent jurisdiction” within the earlier of “2 years
`after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the violation
`that is the basis for such liability” or “5 years after the
`date on which the violation that is the basis for such liabil-
`ity occurs.” §1681p.
`
`Respondent James X. Bormes is an attorney who filed
`a putative class action against the United States in the
`United States District Court for the Northern District of
`Illinois seeking damages under FCRA. Bormes alleged
`that he paid a $350 federal-court filing fee for a client
`using his own credit card on Pay.gov, an Internet-based
`system used by federal courts and dozens of federal agen-
`cies to process online payment transactions. According
`to Bormes, his Pay.gov electronic receipt included the last
`four digits of his credit card, in addition to its expiration
`date, in willful violation of §1681c(g)(1). He claimed that
`he and thousands of similarly situated persons were enti-
`tled to recover damages under §1681n, and asserted juris-
`diction under §1681p, as well as under the Little Tucker
`Act, 28 U. S. C. §1346(a)(2).
`
`
`The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`

`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`FCRA does not contain the explicit waiver of sovereign
`
`immunity necessary to permit a damages suit against the
`United States. 638 F. Supp. 2d 958, 962 (ND Ill. 2009).
`
`The court did not address the Little Tucker Act as an
`asserted basis for jurisdiction. Respondent appealed to
`the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction “of an
`appeal from a final decision of a district court of the
`United States . . . if the jurisdiction of that court was
`based, in whole or in part, on” the Little Tucker Act. 28
`U. S. C. §1295(a)(2). Arguing that the Little Tucker Act’s
`jurisdictional grant did not apply to respondent’s suit,
`the Government moved to transfer the appeal to the
`Seventh Circuit.
`The Federal Circuit denied the transfer motion and
`
`went on to vacate the District Court’s decision. Without
`deciding whether FCRA itself contained the requisite
`waiver of sovereign immunity, the court held that the
`Little Tucker Act provided the Government’s consent to
`suit for violation of FCRA. The court explained that the
`
`Little Tucker Act applied because FCRA “‘can fairly be
`interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal
`Government for the damage sustained.’” 626 F. 3d 574,
`578 (2010) (quoting United States v. White Mountain
`Apache Tribe, 537 U. S. 465, 472 (2003)). This “fair inter-
`pretation” rule, the court explained, “demands a showing
`‘demonstrably lower’ than the initial waiver of sovereign
`immunity” contained in the Little Tucker Act itself. 626
`F. 3d, at 578. The court reasoned that FCRA satisfied the
`“fair interpretation” rule because its damages provision
`applies to “any person” who willfully violates its require-
`ments, 15 U. S. C. §1681n(a), and the Act elsewhere de-
`fines “person” to include “any . . . government,” §1681a(b).
`
`626 F. 3d, at 580. The Federal Circuit remanded to the
`District Court for further proceedings. We granted certio-
`rari, 565 U. S. ___ (2012).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`UNITED STATES v. BORMES
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`
` II
`
`Sovereign immunity shields the United States from suit
`
`absent a consent to be sued that is “‘unequivocally ex-
`pressed.’” United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S.
`
`
`30, 33–34 (1992) (quoting Irwin v. Department of Veterans
`
`Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 95 (1990); some internal quotation
`marks omitted). The Little Tucker Act is one statute that
`unequivocally provides the Federal Government’s consent
`to suit for certain money-damages claims. United States v.
`Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 216 (1983) (Mitchell II ). Subject
`to exceptions not relevant here, the Little Tucker Act
`provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdic-
`tion, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal
`Claims,” of a “civil action or claim against the United
`States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded either
`upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any
`regulation of an executive department, or upon any ex-
`press or implied contract with the United States, or for
`liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding
`in tort.” 28 U. S. C. §1346(a)(2).1 The Little Tucker Act
`and its companion statute, the Tucker Act, §1491(a)(1),2
`
`do not themselves “creat[e] substantive rights,” but “are
`simply jurisdictional provisions that operate to waive
`——————
`
`
`
`
` 1It is undisputed that this class action satisfied the Little Tucker
`
` Act’s amount-in-controversy limitation. We have held that to require
`
`only that the “claims of individual members of the clas[s] do not exceed
`
` $10,000.” United States v. Will, 449 U. S. 200, 211, n. 10 (1980).
`2Whereas the Little Tucker Act creates jurisdiction in the district
`courts concurrent with the Court of Federal Claims for covered claims
`
` of $10,000 or less, the Tucker Act assigns jurisdiction to the Court of
`Federal Claims regardless of monetary amount. As relevant here, the
`scope of the two statutes is otherwise the same. The third statute in
`
` the Tucker Act trio, the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. §1505, “confers a
`like waiver for Indian tribal claims that ‘otherwise would be cognizable
`in the Court of Federal Claims if the claimant were not an Indian
`
`
`tribe.’ ” United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U. S. 465,
`
`
`472 (2003) (quoting §1505).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012)
`
`
`Opinion of the Court
`sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources
`of law.” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U. S. 287,
`290 (2009).
`Bormes argues that whether or not FCRA itself unam-
`
`biguously waives sovereign immunity, the Little Tucker Act
`authorizes his FCRA damages claim against the United
`States. The question, then, is whether a damages claim
`under FCRA “falls within the terms of the Tucker Act,” so
`that “the United States has presumptively consented to
`suit.” Mitchell II, supra, at 216. It does not. Where, as in
`FCRA, a statute contains its own self-executing remedial
`scheme, we look only to that statute to determine whether
`Congress intended to subject the United States to dam-
`ages liability.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`A
`The Court of Claims was established, and the Tucker
`
`Act enacted, to open a judicial avenue for certain mone-
`tary claims against the United States. Before the creation
`of the Court of Claims in 1855, see Act of Feb. 24, 1855
`(1855 Act), ch. 122, §1, 10 Stat. 612, it was not uncommon
`for statutes to impose monetary obligations on the United
`States without specifying a means of judicial enforce-
`ment.3 As a result, claimants routinely petitioned Con-
`gress for private bills to recover money owed by the Federal
`Government. See Mitchell II, supra, at 212 (citing P.
`Bator, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro & H. Wechsler, Hart and
`——————
`3For example, the Act of March 30, 1814, provided that every non-
`commissioned U. S. army officer who “may be captured by the enemy,
`shall be entitled to receive during his captivity . . . the same pay,
`subsistence, and allowance to which he may be entitled whilst in the
`actual service of the United States.” §14, 3 Stat. 115, repealed in 1962
`by Pub. L. 87–649, §14, 76 Stat. 498. The 1814 Act clearly “com-
`mand[ed] the payment of a specified amount of money by the United
`States,” Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S. 879, 923 (1988) (SCALIA, J.,
`dissenting), but did not designate a means of judicial relief in the event
`
`the Government failed to pay.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`6
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES v. BORMES
`
`Opinion of the Court
`Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 98
`(2d ed. 1973)). As this individualized legislative process
`became increasingly burdensome for Congress, the Court
`of Claims was created “to relieve the pressure on Congress
`caused by the volume of private bills.” Glidden Co. v.
`
`Zdanok, 370 U. S. 530, 552 (1962) (plurality opinion). The
`1855 Act authorized the Court of Claims to hear claims
`against the United States “founded upon any law of Con-
`gress,” §1, 10 Stat. 612, and thus allowed claimants to
`sue the Federal Government for monetary relief premised
`on other sources of law. (Specialized legislation remained
`necessary to authorize the payments approved by the
`Court of Claims until 1863, when Congress empowered the
`court to enter final judgments. See Act of Mar. 3, 1863
`
`(1863 Act), ch. 92, 12 Stat. 765; Mitchell II, supra, at 212–
`214 (recounting the history of the Court of Claims)).
`
`Enacted in 1887, the Tucker Act was the successor
`statute to the 1855 and 1863 Acts and replaced most of
`their provisions. See Act of Mar. 3, 1887 (1887 Act), ch.
`359, 24 Stat. 505; Mitchell II, supra, at 213–214. Like the
`1855 Act before it, the Tucker Act provided the Federal
`Government’s consent to suit in the Court of Claims for
`claims “founded upon . . . any law of Congress.” 1887 Act
`§1, 24 Stat. 505. Section 2 of the 1887 Act created concur-
`rent jurisdiction in the district courts for claims of up to
`$1,000. The Tucker Act’s jurisdictional grant, and accom-
`panying immunity waiver, supplied the missing ingredient
`for an action against the United States for the breach of
`
`monetary obligations not otherwise judicially enforceable.4
`——————
`4For purposes of this case, the current versions of the Tucker Act and
`
`
` Little Tucker Act resemble the 1887 Act. Compare 28 U. S. C. §1491(a)(1)
`(permitting suits “founded . . . upon . . . any Act of Congress”) with
`Tucker Act §1, 24 Stat. 505 (permitting suits “founded upon . . . any law
`of Congress, except for pensions”). The prior functions of the Court of
`Claims are now divided between the Court of Federal Claims at the
`
` trial level and the Federal Circuit at the appellate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`B
`
`
`The Tucker Act is displaced, however, when a law as-
`sertedly imposing monetary liability on the United States
`contains its own judicial remedies. In that event, the
`specific remedial scheme establishes the exclusive frame-
`
`work for the liability Congress created under the statute.
`Because a “precisely drawn, detailed statute pre-empts
`
`more general remedies,” Hinck v. United States, 550 U. S.
`501, 506 (2007) (quoting EC Term of Years Trust v. United
`
`
`States, 550 U. S. 429, 434 (2007); internal quotation marks
`omitted), FCRA’s self-executing remedial scheme super-
`sedes the gap-filling role of the Tucker Act.
`
`We have long recognized that an additional remedy in
`the Court of Claims is foreclosed when it contradicts the
`limits of a precise remedial scheme. In Nichols v. United
`
`States, 7 Wall. 122, 131 (1869), the issue was whether the
`1855 Act authorized suit in the Court of Claims for im-
`proper assessment of duties on imported liquor that had
`already been paid without protest. The Court held that it
`did not. The revenue laws already provided a remedy: An
`
`aggrieved merchant could sue to recover the tax, but only
`after paying the duty under protest. Act of Feb. 26, 1845,
`ch. 22, 5 Stat. 727. The Court rejected the supposition
`that “Congress, after having carefully constructed a reve-
`nue system, with ample provisions to redress wrong,
`intended to give to the taxpayer and importer a further
`and different remedy.” 7 Wall., at 131. Permitting suit
`under the 1855 Act, the Court concluded, would frustrate
`congressional intent with respect to the specific remedial
`scheme already in place. The 1855 Act was confined to a
`gap-filling role. As we said in a later case, “the general
`laws which govern the Court of Claims may be resorted
`to for relief ” only because “[n]o special remedy has been
`provided” to enforce a payment to which the claimant was
`entitled. United States v. Kaufman, 96 U. S. 567, 569
`(1878). Where the “liability is one created by statute,” the
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES v. BORMES
`
`Opinion of the Court
` “special remedy provided by the same statute is exclusive.”
`
` Ibid.
`Our more recent cases have consistently held that statu-
`
`tory schemes with their own remedial framework exclude
`alternative relief under the general terms of the Tucker
`
` Act. See, e.g., Hinck, supra; United States v. Fausto, 484
`U. S. 439 (1988); United States v. Erika, Inc., 456 U. S.
`201 (1982). Respondent contends that in each of those
`cases Congress had unambiguously demonstrated its
`intent to foreclose additional review by the Court of Fed-
`eral Claims—whereas here, no similar intent to preclude
`Tucker Act jurisdiction is apparent. See Brief for Re-
`spondent 27–28. But our precedents collectively stand for
`a more basic proposition: Where a specific statutory
`scheme provides the accoutrements of a judicial action, the
`metes and bounds of the liability Congress intended to
`create can only be divined from the text of the statute
`
`itself.5
` In Hinck, for example, we held that the Tax Court pro-
`vides the exclusive forum for suits under 26 U. S. C.
`§6404(h), which authorizes judicial review of the Secre-
`tary’s decision not to abate interest under §6404(e)(1). We
`relied on “our past recognition that when Congress enacts
`a specific remedy when no remedy was previously recog-
`nized . . . the remedy provided is generally regarded as
`——————
`5We therefore need not resolve the parties’ disagreement about
`
` whether certain inconsistencies between the Little Tucker Act and
`
`
` FCRA can be reconciled. Compare 28 U. S. C. §1346(a)(2) (no claims in
`district court “exceeding $10,000 in amount”) with 15 U. S. C. §1681p
`(claims may be brought in district court “without regard to the amount
`in controversy”); compare 28 U. S. C. §2501 (claims must be filed in the
`Court of Federal Claims within six years of accrual) with 15 U. S. C.
`§1681p (claims under FCRA must be filed within the earlier of two
`years after discovery or five years after the alleged violation). Recon-
`cilable or not, FCRA governs. The Government also contends that the
`Tucker Act does not apply because §§1681n and 1681o sound in tort.
`We do not decide the merits of that alternative argument.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`exclusive.” 550 U. S., at 506. Section 6404(h), we con-
`cluded, “fits the bill”: it “provides a forum for adjudication,
`a limited class of potential plaintiffs, a statute of limita-
`tions, a standard of review, and authorization for judicial
`
`relief.” Ibid. It did not matter that Congress “fail[ed]
`explicitly to define the Tax Court’s jurisdiction as exclu-
`sive.” Ibid. We found it “quite plain that the terms of
`§6404(h)—a ‘precisely drawn, detailed statute’ filling a
`perceived hole in the law—control all requests for review
`
`of §6404(e)(1) determinations.” Ibid.
`
`Like §6404(h), FCRA creates a detailed remedial
`
`scheme. Its provisions “set out a carefully circumscribed,
`time-limited, plaintiff-specific” cause of action, and “also
`
`precisely define the appropriate forum.” Id., at 507. It
`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. Claims to enforce liability must be
`brought within a specified limitations period, §1681p, and
`jurisdiction will lie “in any appropriate United States dis-
`trict court, without regard to the amount in controversy,
`or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.” Ibid.
`
`Without resort to the Tucker Act, FCRA enables claimants
`to pursue in court the monetary relief contemplated by the
`statute.
`
`
`Plaintiffs cannot, therefore, mix and match FCRA’s
`
`provisions with the Little Tucker Act’s immunity waiver to
`create an action against the United States. Since FCRA
`
`is a detailed remedial scheme, only its own text can de-
`termine whether the damages liability Congress crafted
`extends to the Federal Government. To hold otherwise—
`to permit plaintiffs to remedy the absence of a waiver of
`sovereign immunity in specific, detailed statutes by plead-
`ing general Tucker Act jurisdiction—would transform the
`sovereign-immunity landscape.
`
`
`The Federal Circuit was therefore wrong to conclude
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` UNITED STATES v. BORMES
`
`Opinion of the Court
`that the Tucker Act justified applying a “less stringent”
`sovereign-immunity analysis to FCRA than our cases
`require. 626 F. 3d, at 582. It distorted our case law in
`applying to FCRA the immunity-waiver standard we
`expressed in White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U. S., at
`
`472: whether the statute “‘can fairly be interpreted as
`mandating compensation by the Federal Government for
`
`the damage sustained.’ ” 626 F. 3d, at 578. That is the
`test for determining whether a statute that imposes an
`obligation but does not provide the elements of a cause of
`action qualifies for suit under the Tucker Act—more spe-
`cifically, whether the failure to perform an obligation
`undoubtedly imposed on the Federal Government creates
`a right to monetary relief. See White Mountain Apache
`Tribe, supra; Mitchell II, 463 U. S. 206. That test is not
`relevant when a “mandate of compensation” is contained
`in a statute that provides a detailed judicial remedy
`against those who are subject to its requirements. FCRA
`is such a statute. By using the “fair interpretation” test to
`determine whether FCRA’s civil liability provisions apply
`to the United States, the Federal Circuit directed the test
`to a purpose for which it was not designed and leapfrogged
`the threshold concern that the Tucker Act cannot be su-
`
`perimposed on an existing remedial scheme.
`
`
`*
`*
`*
`
`We do not decide here whether FCRA itself waives the
`Federal Government’s immunity to damages actions under
`§1681n. That question is for the Seventh Circuit to con-
`sider once this case is transferred to it on remand. But
`whether or not FCRA contains the necessary waiver of
`immunity, any attempt to append a Tucker Act remedy to
`the statute’s existing remedial scheme interferes with its
`intended scope of liability.
`
`
`The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and
`
`the case remanded with instructions to transfer the case to
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
` It is so ordered.
`
`
`
` Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
`for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Try refreshing this document from the court, or go back to the docket to see other documents.

We are unable to display this document.

Go back to the docket to see more.