Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v Kirtz.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States?

The case was decided on February 8, 2024.

The Supreme Court held that the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) waive the sovereign immunity of the United States. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.

As a sovereign entity, the United States is generally immune from suits seeking money damages—under the doctrine known as “sovereign immunity”—unless Congress chooses to waive that immunity. Courts understand Congress to have so chosen only if they find “the language of the statute” is “unmistakably clear” in allowing such suits. One way a statute may have such “unmistakably clear” language is when it creates a cause of action and explicitly “authorizes suit against a government on that claim.” The FCRA satisfies this stringent test.

The FCRA’s requirements apply to “persons” who, like the federal government here, furnish information to consumer reporting agencies. Sections 1681n and 1681o create a cause of action for money damages to consumers injured by “any person” who willfully or negligently fails to comply with the statute’s directive. Section 1681a provides a definition of “person” that includes government agencies, which applies to the entire Act. In the presence of such “unmistakably clear” language, no separate waiver provision is needed.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.