- Top federal judge uses pizza to explain complex Obamacare situation
- Obama, Biden overhaul job training programs
- Drought-plagued Californians turn to paint to keep lawns green
- ISIL now forcing Iraqi shopkeepers to veil mannequins in Mosul
- 11 parents of Nigeria’s abducted girls die
- Genetic mapping triggers new hope on schizophrenia
- Turkish P.M. Erdogan won’t speak to Obama, but he’ll take calls from Biden
- Israel’s ambassador praises Obama, slams Human Rights Watch report
- Md. parents accused of locking up autistic twin sons
- Dancing Kim Jong-un video sparks North Korea fury
Justices spurn ID-theft suit against government
Question of the Day
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued its first opinion of the new term, saying a lawyer cannot combine two laws to sue the federal government for violating identity-theft protection laws banning the printing of credit card numbers and expiration dates on receipts.
The justices' first such rendering of the term was unanimous, as the court turned aside lawyer James X. Bormes' attempt to sue the United States using a combination of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the "Little" Tucker Act.
In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court said Mr. Bormes cannot "mix and match FCRA's provisions with the Little Tucker Act's immunity waiver to create an action against the United States."
The federal government is the largest creditor, lender and employer in the United States, and government lawyers said in court papers that if Mr. Bormes' suit were allowed, the government could face "massive liability."
The FCRA prohibits the showing of more than the last five digits of a card number or the expiration date on a credit-card or debit-card receipt, and defines a person liable under the act as "any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, government or governmental subdivision or agency."
Mr. Bormes' court-filing receipt from the government's www.pay.gov website showed four digits of his credit card number and the expiration date on his $350 receipt.
A federal judge in Illinois threw out Mr. Bormes' class-action lawsuit, saying that Congress did not explicitly waive the federal government's sovereign immunity in the FCRA. But the lawsuit was revived by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which said the Little Tucker Act supplied the necessary waiver. Government lawyers argued that the appeals court should have not looked to a second law, when the FCRA clearly did not make the government liable for damages.
Justice Scalia said the court was not making a decision on whether the government can be sued under the FCRA. "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," Justice Scalia said.
The case now goes back to the federal appeals court.
TWT Video Picks
U.S. appetite for drugs begets violence migrants are fleeing
- Obamacare dealt massive setback by federal appeals court
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- Rep. Jared Polis' anti-fracking crusade riles Colorado
- Jewish woman booted from JetBlue flight over fight with Palestinian
- Hamas terrorists wear Israeli army uniforms to ambush soldiers in Gaza
- LYONS: Small-arms treaty, big Second Amendment threat
- YOUNG: A sinking presidency, deeper after November?
- Obama family set to buy $4.25M desert home in California: report
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
- MERRY: Handicaps in Hillary's way
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq