Rule of Law

RELEASE: Kirtz Argument Reveals Tension Between Expansive Application of Sovereign Immunity Canon and Honest Textualism

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, a case in which the Court is considering whether private individuals can sue the federal government for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:

This morning’s argument revealed the tension between the government’s strained interpretation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Supreme Court’s repeated admonition that Congress does not have to use “magic words” to waive the federal government’s immunity from suit.

Although the Act clearly waives sovereign immunity, imposing liability on any “person” and defining “person” to include “any . . . government or governmental subdivision or agency,” the government argued that it should nonetheless win because the sovereign immunity canon puts the thumb on the scale in favor of the government when statutes are ambiguous regarding whether immunity has been waived.

But as we explained in our amicus brief, the sovereign immunity canon does not alter the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation in the first place. Rather, as Justice Gorsuch pointed out, the “first step” to interpreting a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity is to ascertain what the statutory provisions “mean.” Where, as in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, there is no ambiguity, the sovereign immunity canon simply has no role to play.

The result here thus should be simple: Congress waived sovereign immunity, and private individuals who allege that the federal government has violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act should get their day in court.

##

Resources:

Case page in Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/united-states-department-of-agriculture-rural-development-rural-housing-service-v-kirtz/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

##

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
April 30, 2026

13th Annual Home Stretch at the Supreme Court

Host: Constitutional Accountability Center
This year’s Home Stretch at the Supreme Court panel discussion will be moderated by Law...
Participants: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brianne J. Gorod, Easha Anand, Jennifer Bennett, Kelsi Brown Corkran, Chris Geidner, Melissa Murray
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

Supreme Court not fully sold on foreclosure fairness bid

Courthouse News Service
A showdown over tax foreclosures had the justices considering the striking set of facts that...
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.