2012 Supreme Court term

UNITED STATES v. JAMES X. BORMES

Dockets 11-192Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

According to Mr. Srini, the United States argues that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) includes its own remedial scheme, which supports the petitioner’s position.

According to Mr. Jacobs, the government is one of the two largest issuers of credit‑card receipts, so excluding it from FCRA protections would be contrary to public interest.

According to Mr. Jacobs, the 1996 amendment to the FCRA that changed “credit reporting agency” to “person” was a deliberate step, indicating congressional intent to include entities like the government.

The consequences of the Court’s ruling could be enormous for the Federal Treasury.

Background and question before the Court

Justice Sotomayor asked whether the party was happy with the circuit’s suggestion that the specific provisions of the FCRA govern the general ones.

What each side argues

United States (Petitioner)

According to Mr. Srini, the FCRA includes its own remedial scheme, which supports the petitioner’s argument.

According to Mr. Jacobs, the government is one of the two largest issuers of credit‑card receipts, so excluding it from FCRA protections would be contrary to public interest.

According to Mr. Jacobs, the 1996 amendment to the FCRA that changed “credit reporting agency” to “person” was a deliberate step, indicating congressional intent to include entities like the government.

James X. Bormes (Respondent)

Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.

What happened at oral argument

During oral argument the petitioner emphasized the FCRA’s remedial scheme, the government’s status as a major credit‑card issuer, and the 1996 amendment’s intent, while Justice Sotomayor questioned whether the specific provisions of the FCRA should govern the general ones.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Because the government is a major issuer of credit‑card receipts, the outcome could have significant fiscal implications for the Federal Treasury.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 74f1b19a6bbe9207736f-r1-5526995d3be3953e.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.