[1] The Court characterized the Little Tucker Act as merely "gap-filling" and, therefore, superseded when a statute authorizing a claim for damages set forth its own specific enforcement procedures, as did the FCRA.

[3] The district court dismissed the suit, holding that the FCRA did not waive the federal government's sovereign immunity so as to permit it to be sued under that statute.

[5] The Federal Circuit denied the government's motion and vacated the district court's decision, ruling that the Little Tucker Act constituted a waiver of sovereign immunity that was applicable to a claim for damages under the FCRA.

In a unanimous opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court vacated the Federal Circuit's decision and ruled that the Little Tucker Act had no applicability to claims brought under the FCRA.

The Court wrote that "[t]o hold otherwise—to permit plaintiffs to remedy the absence of a waiver of sovereign immunity in specific, detailed statutes by pleading general Tucker Act jurisdiction—would transform the sovereign-immunity landscape.