The U.S. Supreme Court case TRW Inc. v. Adelaide Andrews in 2001 revolved around the interpretation of a provision within the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA requires credit reporting agencies to maintain reasonable procedures to avoid disclosing obsolete information, with most adverse data considered obsolete after seven years. However, there was ambiguity about when this period begins for cases involving lawsuits or judgments. Adelaide Andrews sued TRW Inc., alleging that they violated FCRA by providing outdated information on her credit report related to a judgment against her from over seven years prior. TRW argued that the clock started once the judgment had been entered into court records while Andrews contended it should start at an earlier date when liability was initially determined. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Andrews, stating that under federal law, obsolescence starts from "the date of entry" or when liability is first established rather than later procedural steps such as recording a lien based on judgement.

In the dissenting opinion for TRW Inc. v. Adelaide Andrews, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). He argued that Congress intended to provide a single statute of limitations period for all FCRA claims, not two separate periods as suggested by the majority. According to him, this would begin when an individual discovered or should have reasonably discovered their potential claim against a credit reporting agency. The justice also criticized the court's reliance on legislative history and policy considerations in interpreting statutory language which he believed was clear and unambiguous. Furthermore, he expressed concern that such an approach could lead to inconsistent judicial interpretations and undermine legal certainty.