The U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. James X. Bormes, 2012, revolved around the issue of whether the federal government could be held liable for damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). James Bormes, an attorney, filed a class-action lawsuit against the U.S., alleging that it violated FCRA by displaying his credit card's expiration date during an online payment transaction on a federal website. The government argued that it was immune from such lawsuits due to provisions in the Little Tucker Act and Federal Tort Claims Act which grant sovereign immunity except in specific circumstances not applicable here. The District Court dismissed Bormes' claim but he appealed to Seventh Circuit which reversed this decision stating that Little Tucker act waived sovereign immunity for FCRA claims as well. However, when brought before Supreme Court they unanimously ruled in favor of US Government saying neither acts waive sovereign immunity for violations of FCRA because Congress did not explicitly mention so while drafting these laws.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. James X. Bormes, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority misinterpreted the Little Tucker Act's jurisdictional grant and its relationship with other federal laws. She contended that the Court should have followed a two-step process to determine whether Congress intended to allow lawsuits under this act for violations of another law (in this case, Fair Credit Reporting Act). First, she believed there must be an examination if FCRA is money-mandating; secondly, it needs to be determined whether Congress intended FCRA’s remedial scheme to supersede or coexist with remedies provided by Little Tucker Act. In her view, both steps would affirmatively answer in favor of Mr.Bormes' claim against U.S government.