Announcement of opinions for Thursday, Feb. 8 (complete)

Scotusblog ^ | 2/8/24 | staff

[CFW]

Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz: The court unanimously held that a consumer can sue a federal agency for violating the terms of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

Holding: A consumer may sue a federal agency under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o for defying the terms of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on February 8, 2024.

Facts of the case In 1970, Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to regulate credit reporting and protect consumer privacy. The Act was amended in 1996 to impose additional obligations on entities like creditors and lenders that furnish information to credit reporting agencies. These amendments allowed consumers to dispute inaccuracies in their credit files and mandated furnishers to investigate and correct such inaccuracies. Reginald Kirtz filed a lawsuit in 2020 against Trans Union, AES, and the USDA, alleging both negligent and willful violations of the FCRA. Kirtz claimed that despite his loans being closed with a zero balance, both AES and the USDA continued to report him as “120 Days Past Due,” damaging his credit score. While Trans Union and AES responded to the lawsuit, the USDA sought dismissal, citing sovereign immunity. The district court granted the USDA’s motion, reasoning that the FCRA did not clearly express Congress’s intent to waive sovereign immunity, despite the Act’s language stating that it applies to “any person,” including government agencies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, concluding that when Congress has clearly expressed its intent, as through the FCRA, even when the meaning is implausible, courts may neither second-guess its choices nor decline to apply the law as written.

Question Do the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States?

-----

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC: The court held that under the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a whistleblower is not required to prove that his employer acted with retaliatory intent.

Holding: A whistleblower seeking to invoke the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act must prove that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on February 8, 2024. Justice Alito filed an concurring opinion, in which Justice Barrett joined.

Facts of the case In 2011, UBS hired Trevor Murray as a strategist in its commercial mortgage-backed securities business. Under Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, Murray was required to certify that his reports were produced independently and that they accurately reflected his own views. According to Murray, two leaders at UBS improperly pressured him to skew his research. Murray repeatedly reported this conduct to his supervisor, who declined to take action. UBS terminated Murray in 2012.

Murray sued UBS in 2014 alleging that his former employer terminated him in response to his complaints about fraud on shareholders in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's antiretaliation provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. The district court ruled for Murray, and UBS appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that Murray had to prove UBS's retaliatory intent to prevail on his section 1514A claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with UBS and vacated the judgment of the district court.

Question

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, must a whistleblower prove his employer acted with “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief?

[CFW]

I was so wrapped up in the Colorado hearing this morning, I forgot about the SCOTUS opinions to be handed down today. There were two. Both 9-0.

Boring cases unless the decision affects you, but important ones none the less.

[OKSooner]

When are they gonna get around to Chevron?

[CFW]

The cases addressing the Chevron deference (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce) was heard on January 17th.

I assume we will get an opinion on those cases mid to late June given the complexities of the issues and the number of amici briefs filed.

Here is an article on the matter:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/

Remember, SCOTUSBLOG is not affiliated with the Court itself, but is operated by Court watchers who are pretty left-wing. However, they do have some good insights on the cases before the court.

[OKSooner]

Thank you.

[CFW]

Here is an article giving a little more information on the Fair Credit Reporting Act case.

Supreme Court Rules Biden Administration Must Face False Debt Reporting Lawsuits

[OKSooner]

Thanks again.