(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL
DEVELOPMENT RURAL HOUSING SERVICE v. KIRTZ
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 22–846. Argued November 6, 2023—Decided February 8, 2024
The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, as amended by the Consumer
Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996, allows consumers to sue lenders
who willfully or negligently supply false information about them to en-
tities that generate credit reports. Respondent Reginald Kirtz secured
a loan from a division of the United States Department of Agriculture
and later sued the agency for money damages under the FCRA. Kirtz
alleged that the USDA falsely told TransUnion—a credit reporting
agency—that his account was past due, thus damaging his credit score
and his ability to secure loans at affordable rates. The USDA moved
to dismiss, invoking sovereign immunity. The District Court sided
with the USDA. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that 15 U. S. C.
§§1681n and 1681o authorize suits for damages against “any person”
who violates the FCRA, and §1681a expressly defines “person” to in-
clude “any” government agency. 46 F. 4th 159, 164–166.
Held: A consumer may sue a federal agency for defying the FCRA’s
terms. Pp. 4–20.
(a) As a sovereign, the United States is generally immune from suits
seeking money damages unless Congress chooses to waive that im-
munity. See, e.g., United States v. Testan, 424 U. S. 392, 399. To de-
termine whether Congress has chosen to do so, this Court applies a
“clear statement” rule, permitting suit against the government only
when “the language of the statute” is “unmistakably clear” in allowing
it. Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 73.
Guided by these principles, this Court has found a clear waiver of
sovereign immunity “in only two situations.” Financial Oversight and
Management Bd. for P. R. v. Centro De Periodismo Investigativo, Inc.,
2 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
RURAL HOUSING SERV. v. KIRTZ
Syllabus
598 U. S. 339, 347. “The first is when a statute says . . . that it is strip-
ping immunity from a sovereign entity.” Ibid. The second “is when a
statute creates a cause of action” and explicitly “authorizes suit
against a government on that claim.” Ibid. Statutes in the second
category may not directly address sovereign immunity, but dismissing
a claim against the government would negate a claim specifically au-
thorized by Congress. Id., at 348; see Kimel, 528 U. S. 62.
Applying these principles leads to the conclusion that the FCRA
clearly waives sovereign immunity in cases like this one. The FCRA’s
requirements apply to “person[s]” who, like the federal government
here, furnish information to consumer reporting agencies. §1681s–
2(b). Sections 1681n and 1681o create a cause of action for money
damages to consumers injured by “[a]ny person” who willfully or neg-
ligently fails to comply with the statute’s directive. Section 1681a pro-
vides a definition of “person” that includes “any . . . government . . .
agency,” §1681a(b), and that applies to the entire Act. That other stat-
utory provisions in the FCRA and elsewhere address the question of
sovereign immunity in arguably more obvious terms, see, e.g., §1681u,
does not make the waiver of sovereign immunity in the provisions at
issue here any less clear. Pp. 4–9.
(b) The government implies that a cause of action against the gov-
ernment is insufficient to effect a waiver unless accompanied by a sep-
arate provision addressing sovereign immunity, but the Court has held
that sovereign immunity may be waived even without a separate
waiver provision. Financial Oversight and Management Bd., 598
U. S., at 347. Next, the government turns to the canon of superfluity
to extrapolate a new rule: A statute should not be read to waive sover-
eign immunity unless doing so would leave it without any work to per-
form. Applying its new rule should foreclose suit here, the government
submits, because allowing federal agencies a sovereign-immunity de-
fense would not foreclose every suit under §§1681n and 1681o. But this
Court has never endorsed the notion that a statute may effect a waiver
of sovereign immunity only if that is the sole work it performs. The
government theorizes that this Court may not find a waiver of sover-
eign immunity where substantive provisions like §§1681n and 1681o
merely cross-reference a general definition—such as “persons”—that
includes both sovereign and non-sovereign entities. Under this Court’s
precedents, however, Congress need not “make its clear statement in
a single section.” Kimel, 528 U. S., at 76. What matters is whether
Congress has authorized a waiver of sovereign immunity that is
“clearly discernible” from the sum total of its work. Lac du Flambeau
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, 599 U. S. 382,
388. Alternatively still, the government points to Atascadero State
Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, and Employees of Dept. of Public
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 3
Syllabus
Health and Welfare of Mo. v. Department of Public Health and Welfare
of Mo., 411 U. S. 279, as imposing more demanding rules a court must
follow before finding a waiver of sovereign immunity. But these cases
arise from a period in which this Court’s approach to sovereign im-
munity was very different than it is today. Understood in this context,
Atascadero stands only for the proposition that Congress must, at a
minimum, mention the government when it wishes to scrap sovereign
immunity and permit damages claims. The FCRA meets that require-
ment. Employees is factually distinguishable. Further, the Employees
Court considered legislative history all but dispositive despite the stat-
utory text, 411 U. S., at 283, 285, a methodological approach the Court
has since repeatedly disavowed. Pp. 9–15.
(c) The government requests this Court to hold that §§1681n and
1681o do not clearly waive sovereign immunity because they do not
“unambiguously incorporate” §1681a’s definition of “person.” But a
court must respect definitions given by Congress as “virtually conclu-
sive,” Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U. S. 28, 56, deviating only when applying
it would be incompatible with Congress’[s] regulatory scheme” or
would “destro[y] one of the statute’s major purposes.” Digital Realty
Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 583 U. S. 149, 163–164. The government cannot
meet that standard given that applying the Act’s definitional and civil
liability provisions as written to allow suits against federal agencies to
proceed seems consistent with the Act’s goal of “ensur[ing] fair and ac-
curate credit reporting.” Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U. S.
47, 52. The government notes that giving §1681a’s definition of “per-
son” effect in §§1681n and 1681o would render “not just the federal
government, but also individual States” susceptible to consumer suits
for money damages. Brief for Petitioner 33. The government finds
that result unthinkable because Congress enacted the FCRA pursuant
to the Constitution’s Commerce Clause—a provision this Court has
held does not endow Congress with the power to abrogate state sover-
eign immunity. But none of that means the Court may disregard the
statute’s clear terms, see Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S.
44, 57, n. 9, even if state defendants might have a valid constitutional
defense to a suit that the federal government does not.
The government next points to §1681q, a criminal-enforcement pro-
vision, to argue that because the federal government cannot be sub-
jected to criminal prosecution, it would be absurd to apply §1681a’s
definition of “person” to that provision. Even if the government is
right, the power to correct for an absurdity “in one portion of a statute”
does not imply a “license to distort other provisions of the statute.”
NLRB v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America, 511 U. S. 571,
579. And the government provides no basis here to suggest that ap-
plying §1681a’s definition in §§1681n and 1681o would lead to absurd
4 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
RURAL HOUSING SERV. v. KIRTZ
Syllabus
results. Finally, the argument that the Privacy Act of 1974 covers
some of the same ground as the FCRA, and Congress had no reason to
supplement its remedies also fails. The government acknowledges
that at least some provisions of the FCRA apply to it, and the Court’s
duty when two laws are complementary—as is the case here—is to give
effect to both. Pp. 15–20.
46 F. 4th 159, affirmed.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 22–846
_________________
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOP-
MENT RURAL HOUSING SERVICE, PETITIONER v.
REGINALD KIRTZ
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
[February 8, 2024]
JUSTICE GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court.
A credit report can determine everything from whether a
person can secure a credit card, purchase a home, win a new
job, or start a small business. Recognizing the importance
of accuracy in credit reporting, Congress adopted the Fair
Credit Reporting Act in 1970 (FCRA). In its present form,
the Act allows consumers to sue private lenders who will-
fully or negligently supply false information about them to
agencies that generate credit reports. The question we face
is whether one of the Nation’s largest lenders—the federal
government—is also susceptible to suit when it supplies
false information, or whether it may invoke sovereign im-
munity to avoid liability.
I
This case arises from a loan Reginald Kirtz secured from
the Rural Housing Service. The Service, a division of the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), “issues
loans to promote the development of safe and affordable
housing in rural communities.” Kirtz v. Trans Union LLC,
46 F. 4th 159, 163 (CA3 2022). According to Mr. Kirtz, he
2 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
RURAL HOUSING SERV. v. KIRTZ
Opinion of the Court
repaid his loan in full by mid-2018. See Amended Com-
plaint in No. 2:20–cv–05231 (ED Pa.), ECF Doc. 20, p. 3,
¶11. Despite this, the USDA repeatedly told TransUnion,
a company engaged in the business of preparing consumer
credit reports, that his account was past due. Ibid., ¶12.
These misrepresentations damaged his credit score and
threatened his ability to secure future loans at affordable
rates. See id., at 3–4, ¶¶12–14. In an effort to resolve the
problem, Mr. Kirtz alerted TransUnion to the error, and the
company, in turn, notified the USDA. Id., at 5, ¶¶16, 20.
But, Mr. Kirtz says, the USDA failed to take “any action to
investigate or correct” its records. 46 F. 4th, at 163. So he
eventually decided to sue the agency under the FCRA. Ibid.
As originally enacted in 1970, the FCRA focused largely
on two groups. First, it addressed “consumer reporting
agenc[ies]” like TransUnion, charging them with various
new duties designed to ensure the accuracy and confidenti-
ality of their work. See, e.g., 84 Stat. 1129, 1132; 15 U. S. C.
§§1681b, 1681i. Second, it imposed new regulations on
“person[s]” who procure credit information from consumer
reporting agencies. So, for example, the Act provided that
a “person” who requests “an investigative consumer report
on any consumer” must inform the consumer in writing “not
later than three days after the date on which the report was
first requested.” 84 Stat. 1130; see §1681d(a). The FCRA
proceeded to define the term “person” broadly to “mea[n]
any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, co-
operative, association, government or governmental subdi-
vision or agency, or other entity.” 84 Stat. 1128; see
§1681a(b). The Act further authorized consumers to seek
damages for violations of its terms, but only against con-
sumer reporting agencies and those who use the infor-
mation they produce. 84 Stat. 1134; see §§1681n, 1681o
(1970 ed.).
In the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996,
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 3
Opinion of the Court
Congress amended the FCRA to broaden its reach. As rel-
evant here, Congress added provisions addressing those
who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies.
Referencing the definition of “person” it had adopted in
1970, Congress instructed that, if a consumer disputes “the
completeness or accuracy” of his credit information, the
“person” who furnished it must investigate the matter and
take steps to correct any mistake. 110 Stat. 3009–448; see
§1681s–2(b). To enforce these new duties, Congress revised
the 1970 Act’s remedial provisions. Where it had once au-
thorized consumer suits against only consumer reporting
agencies and users of their information, Congress now au-
thorized consumer suits against “[a]ny person” who will-
fully or negligently fails to comply with “any” of the law’s
“requirement[s].” 110 Stat. 3009–446; see §§1681n(a),
1681o(a).
Mr. Kirtz sought relief under these new provisions. Ac-
cording to his complaint, the USDA furnished information
to TransUnion. The agency had notice that the information
it supplied was false. That false information impaired Mr.
Kirtz’s ability to access affordable credit. Yet the agency
failed to take any steps to correct its mistake—either will-
fully (in violation of §1681n) or negligently (in violation of
§1681o). By way of remedy, Mr. Kirtz sought money dam-
ages consistent with what the FCRA allows. See Amended
Complaint 12.
In response, the USDA moved to dismiss the complaint.
The agency did not dispute that allegations like Mr. Kirtz’s
state a viable claim for relief. Instead, it pointed to this
Court’s precedents holding that, as sovereign, the federal
government enjoys immunity from suits for money dam-
ages unless Congress waives that immunity. And, the
agency contended, nothing in the FCRA purports to render
the federal government amenable to suit. The district court
sided with the USDA, but the Third Circuit reversed.
Speaking for a unanimous panel, Judge Krause observed
4 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
RURAL HOUSING SERV. v. KIRTZ
Opinion of the Court
that §§1681n and 1681o authorize suits for damages
against “any person” who violates the Act, and §1681a ex-
pressly defines “person” to include “any” government
agency. 46 F. 4th, at 164–166.
The question whether Mr. Kirtz may sue the federal gov-
ernment holds significance for many. A 2021 study cited by
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “found that
over 34% of consumers surveyed were able to identify at
least one error in their credit reports.” 87 Fed. Reg. 64689–
64690 (2022). Mistakes like these can lead lenders to insist
on higher interest rates or other terms that make it “diffi-
cult or impossible” for consumers “to obtain a mortgage,
auto loan, student loan, or other credit.” Id., at 64689.
These days, too, federal agencies are among “ ‘the largest
furnishers of credit information’ ” to consumer reporting
agencies. Brief for Petitioner 38 (quoting Robinson v. De-
partment of Education, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS,
J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 3)). Yet
the lower courts have reached different views on the ques-
tion whether federal agencies are answerable under the
FCRA for their mistakes. Like the Third Circuit, the Sev-
enth and D. C. Circuits have held that the FCRA authorizes
suits against government agencies no less than it does pri-
vate lenders. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits, by contrast,
have held that sovereign immunity bars consumer suits
against federal agencies. We agreed to hear this case to re-
solve that conflict. 599 U. S. ___ (2023).
II
The parties agree on the principles that guide our analy-
sis even as they disagree on the answer those principles
yield. Under this Court’s precedents, both sides
acknowledge, the United States, as sovereign, is generally
immune from suits seeking money damages. See, e.g.,
United States v. Testan, 424 U. S. 392, 399 (1976). At the
same time, Congress may choose to waive that immunity.
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 5
Opinion of the Court
Ibid. But because the power to waive the federal govern-
ment’s immunity is Congress’s prerogative, not ours, this
Court applies a “clear statement” rule. Under the rule’s
terms, we will permit a suit against the government only
when a statute “unmistakabl[y]” allows it. FAA v. Cooper,
566 U. S. 284, 291 (2012). “Congress need not state its in-
tent in any particular way.” Ibid. It need not “use magic
words.” Ibid. Nor must it “make its clear statement in a
single section or in statutory provisions enacted at the same
time.” Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 76
(2000). But, one way or another, a waiver of sovereign im-
munity must be “unmistakably clear in the language of the
statute.” Id., at 73 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Necessarily, this inquiry trains on statutory text rather
than legislative history. Because “[a]ny ambiguities in the
statutory language are to be construed in favor of immun-
ity,” no amount of legislative history can “supply a waiver
that is not clearly evident from the language of the statute.”
Cooper, 566 U. S., at 290; accord, Lane v. Peña, 518 U. S.
187, 192 (1996). Conversely, when an “ ‘unmistakably
clear’ ” waiver of sovereign immunity appears in a statute,
no amount of legislative history can dislodge it. Dellmuth
v. Muth, 491 U. S. 223, 230 (1989); see Food Marketing In-
stitute v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U. S. 427, 436 (2019)
(“Even those of us who sometimes consult legislative his-
tory will never allow it to be used to muddy the meaning of
clear statutory language” (internal quotation marks omit-
ted)). Either way, then, a court charged with asking
whether Congress has spoken clearly has its answer long
before it might have reason to consult the Congressional
Record.
To date, this Court has found a clear waiver of sovereign
immunity “in only two situations.” Financial Oversight and
Management Bd. for P. R. v. Centro De Periodismo Investi-
gativo, Inc., 598 U. S. 339, 347 (2023). “The first is when a
statute says in so many words that it is stripping immunity
6 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
RURAL HOUSING SERV. v. KIRTZ
Opinion of the Court
from a sovereign entity.” Ibid. Congress has employed this
approach in the Bankruptcy Code, for example, where it has
stated that, “[n]otwithstanding an assertion of sovereign
immunity, sovereign immunity is abrogated as to a govern-
mental unit . . . with respect to” enumerated provisions of
the Code. 11 U. S. C. §106(a). The second situation “is
when a statute creates a cause of action” and explicitly “au-
thorizes suit against a government on that claim.” Finan-
cial Oversight and Management Bd., 598 U. S., at 347.
Statutes like these may not discuss sovereign immunity in
so many words. But dismissing a claim against the govern-
ment in these circumstances would effectively “negat[e]” a
claim Congress has clearly authorized. Id., at 348.
The Court encountered a statute falling into this second
category in Kimel, 528 U. S. 62. That case involved the
question whether the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967 (ADEA) abrogated state sovereign immunity.
As originally enacted, the ADEA authorized employees to
bring claims against employers who discriminate based on
age. 29 U. S. C. §§623(a), 626(c)(1). A later amendment in-
corporated into the ADEA a provision of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) that extended the right to
bring claims for age-based discrimination “against any em-
ployer (including a public agency).” §216(b) (emphasis
added); see §626(b). And, elsewhere, the FLSA defined
“ ‘[p]ublic agency’ ” to include “the government of a State or
political subdivision thereof ” and “any agency of . . . a
State, or a political subdivision of a State.” §203(x). In light
of these amendments and their cross-references, Kimel
held, the statute’s “plain language . . . clearly demon-
strate[d] Congress[’s] intent to subject the States to suit for
money damages at the hands of individual employees.” 528
U. S., at 74.
Guided by these principles, we think the Third Circuit
reached the right decision in this case: The FCRA effects a
clear waiver of sovereign immunity. In §1681s–2, the Act
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 7
Opinion of the Court
requires “person[s]” who furnish information to consumer
reporting agencies to investigate consumer complaints and
make any necessary corrections. 15 U. S. C. §1681s–2(b).
In §§1681n and 1681o, the Act authorizes consumer suits
for money damages against “[a]ny person” who willfully or
negligently fails to comply with this directive. §§1681n(a),
1681o(a). In §1681a, the Act defines the term “ ‘person’ ” to
include “any . . . governmental . . . agency.” §1681a(b). And
the same provision instructs us to apply this definition
throughout the entire “subchapter” where §§1681n and
1681o appear. §1681a(a). Through this series of statutory
directions, no less than those we encountered in Kimel,
Congress has explicitly permitted consumer claims for dam-
ages against the government. Dismissing suits like Mr.
Kirtz’s would effectively “negat[e]” suits Congress has
clearly authorized. Financial Oversight and Management
Bd., 598 U. S., at 348.
We need look no further to resolve this case. But if we do,
other portions of the FCRA point to the same conclusion.
Section 1681a(y) excludes from the definition of “consumer
report” certain communications that “are not provided to
any person except . . . any Federal or State officer, agency,
or department, or any officer, agency, or department of a
unit of general local government.” (Emphasis added.) Sec-
tion 1681b requires a “person” who intends to take an “ad-
verse [employment] action” based on a consumer credit re-
port to provide the affected individual with a copy of the
report unless “an agency or department of the United States
Government” seeks to use the report as part of a national
security investigation. §§1681b(b)(3)(A), (4)(A). Both pro-
visions thus exempt government agencies from the Act’s
otherwise-broad definition of “person” for particular rea-
sons in particular contexts. All of which tends to confirm
what the Act tells us explicitly: Throughout the Act, the
term “person” includes the government unless otherwise
noted. See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U. S. 450,
8 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
RURAL HOUSING SERV. v. KIRTZ
Opinion of the Court
457–458 (2022) (recounting the traditional canon of con-
struction that material variations in usage can illuminate
a statute’s meaning).
To be sure, there are other provisions in the FCRA—just
as there are elsewhere in the U. S. Code—that address the
question of sovereign immunity in different and arguably
even more obvious terms. For example, Congress added
§1681u to the FCRA as part of the Intelligence Authoriza-
tion Act for Fiscal Year 1996. See 109 Stat. 974. That pro-
vision allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation to access
consumer information, subject to a number of constraints.
See §§1681u(a)–(d). At the same time, the statute indicates
that the failure to respect those constraints can expose
“[a]ny agency or department of the United States” to
“liab[ility] to the consumer” for money damages. §1681u(j).
While nothing in §1681u discusses sovereign immunity as
such, everyone agrees its language clearly waives sovereign
immunity.
None of that, however, makes the waiver of sovereign im-
munity reflected in the provisions now before us any less
clear. “If no magic words are required” to waive sovereign
immunity, then the clarity of “each statute must be evalu-
ated on its own terms.” Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491
U. S. 1, 13, n. 4 (1989). And the fact that Congress chose to
use certain language to waive sovereign immunity in one
amendment to the FCRA hardly means it was “foreclose[d]
. . . from using different language to accomplish th[e] same
goal” in a different set of amendments to the same law. Lac
du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v.
Coughlin, 599 U. S. 382, 395 (2023). The question we must
answer is not whether §§1681a, 1681n, and 1681o speak in
the same terms as §1681u. The only question we face is
whether those provisions speak clearly to the government’s
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 9
Opinion of the Court
liability. Because they do, that is the end of the matter.1
III
A
While the government largely accepts our understanding
of this Court’s sovereign-immunity jurisprudence, it dis-
putes some of the finer points. As an initial matter, the
government asserts that, “to impose liability on a sovereign,
a plaintiff must identify both a ‘source of substantive law’
that ‘provides an avenue for relief ’ and ‘a waiver of sover-
eign immunity.’ ” Brief for Petitioner 14 (quoting FDIC v.
Meyer, 510 U. S. 471, 484 (1994)). The implication is that a
cause of action explicitly against the government is insuffi-
cient unless accompanied by a separate provision address-
ing sovereign immunity. See Brief for Petitioner 14.
That implication is incorrect. At the risk of repeating
ourselves, a cause of action authorizing suit against the
government may waive sovereign immunity even without a
separate waiver provision. Financial Oversight and Man-
agement Bd., 598 U. S., at 347; see, e.g., Seminole Tribe of
Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 56–57 (1996) (Congress abro-
gated state sovereign immunity when it explicitly author-
ized a cause of action against “Stat[es],” despite the absence
of a separate waiver provision). Nor does FDIC v. Meyer,
where this Court refused to recognize an implied cause of
action, say anything to the contrary. See 510 U. S., at 484.
The government must know as much. Why else would it
hold out §1681u—a section that contains an express cause
——————
1 The differences between §1681u (on the one hand) and §§1681n and
1681o (on the other) are in any event unremarkable. Section 1681u prin-
cipally concerns the liability of the United States. Understandably, then,
Congress singled out the United States by name in that section. Sections
1681n and 1681o, by contrast, address the liability of a broad array of
government agencies, corporations, and natural persons. Understanda-
bly then, too, Congress chose a parsimonious approach in these sections
by employing the term “person[s]”—one §1681a defines capaciously
enough to capture them all.
10 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
RURAL HOUSING SERV. v. KIRTZ
Opinion of the Court
of action against the government but no separate waiver
provision—as “a model for authorizing suits against the
United States”? Brief for Petitioner 34.
Changing tack but pursuing the same end, the govern-
ment points to the canon against superfluity. Proper re-
spect for Congress cautions courts against lightly assuming
that any of the statutory terms it has chosen to employ are
“superfluous” or “void” of significance. TRW Inc. v. An-
drews, 534 U. S. 19, 31 (2001) (internal quotation marks
omitted). From this familiar teaching, the government
seeks to extrapolate a new rule: A provision can waive sov-
ereign immunity only if that provision would have no other
role to play in the statutory scheme. Brief for Petitioner
20–21. That rule should foreclose suit here, the govern-
ment submits, because allowing federal agencies a
sovereign-immunity defense would not foreclose every suit
under §§1681n and 1681o. See id., at 24. After all, even if
consumers injured by government agencies could not seek
relief under these provisions, other consumers harmed by
private creditors still could. See ibid.
We cannot agree with this suggestion any more than the
last. The canon against rendering statutory terms a nullity
has a long lineage. But this Court has never endorsed the
notion that a statute may effect a waiver of sovereign im-
munity only if that is the sole work it performs. Doing so
would (again) effectively force Congress to address sover-
eign immunity in so many words in a discrete statutory pro-
vision. It would come perilously close, as well, to imposing
a “magic-words” requirement. For good reason, then, the
government’s supposed rule appears in none of the deci-
sions it directs us to—not in Seminole Tribe of Fla., 517
U. S. 44, not in Kimel, 528 U. S. 62, and not in Nevada Dept.
of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U. S. 721 (2003). See
Brief for Petitioner 18–19.
The government has another theory to offer. We may not
find a waiver of sovereign immunity, it suggests, “when a
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 11
Opinion of the Court
cause of action merely cross-references a general definition
that includes sovereigns along with non-sovereigns.” Id., at
22. Running with this idea, the government concedes that
Congress would have clearly waived sovereign immunity if
it had “plug[ged]” the full definition of “persons” from
§1681a directly into §§1681n and 1681o. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7;
accord, Brief for Petitioner 22. But, the government argues,
a waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be effected by read-
ing these provisions in combination.
This theory encounters its own difficulties. Under this
Court’s precedents, Congress need not “make its clear state-
ment in a single section” adopted at a single moment in
time. Kimel, 528 U. S., at 76. Instead, what matters is
whether Congress has authorized a waiver of sovereign im-
munity that is “clearly discernible” from the sum total of its
work. Lac du Flambeau, 599 U. S., at 388 (internal quota-
tion marks omitted). Were the rule otherwise, large
swathes of our modern sovereign-immunity case law would
be cast into doubt. After all, in Kimel this Court relied on
the ADEA’s incorporation of the FLSA’s enforcement provi-
sion, and the latter provision’s incorporation, in turn, of a
separate definitional provision. See 528 U. S., at 73–75. In
Union Gas, the Court relied on the definition of “person” in
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act of 1980 along with other clues from
surrounding statutory provisions. 491 U. S., at 7–10. And
in Seminole Tribe we “confirm[ed]” the “clear statement in
one statutory subsection by looking to provisions in
[an]other subsection.” Kimel, 528 U. S., at 104–105
(THOMAS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (cit-
ing Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S., at 56–57).
Alternatively still, the government points to Atascadero
State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234 (1985), and Em-
ployees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. De-
partment of Public Health and Welfare of Mo., 411 U. S. 279
(1973). These cases, the government insists, impose still
12 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
RURAL HOUSING SERV. v. KIRTZ
Opinion of the Court
other and more demanding rules a court must follow before
finding a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Brief for Peti-
tioner 21, 25.
To appreciate the problem with this line of thinking,
some background helps. For a period in the mid-20th cen-
tury, this Court’s approach to sovereign immunity looked
considerably different than it does today (or did before).
Back then, in cases like Parden v. Terminal R. Co. of Ala.
Docks Dept., 377 U. S. 184 (1964), this Court was content to
do away with state sovereign immunity without clear au-
thorization from Congress. Instead, the Court would infer
a congressional intention to abrogate immunity from statu-
tory text that made no mention of the government, id., at
187, 199 (White, J., dissenting), sometimes resting on clues
found in legislative history, see, e.g., Hutto v. Finney, 437
U. S. 678, 694 (1978). In time, the Court began to break
from this approach. See College Savings Bank v. Florida
Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 677–
678 (1999). But decades passed before the Court defini-
tively repudiated Parden. See, e.g., Welch v. Texas Dept. of
Highways and Public Transp., 483 U. S. 468, 478 (1987) (in-
dicating that later decisions had implicitly overruled
Parden, but explicitly overruling Parden for good measure);
Dellmuth, 491 U. S., at 230 (rejecting the use of legislative
history when assessing whether Congress abrogated sover-
eign immunity); College Savings Bank, 527 U. S., at 680
(overruling “[w]hatever may remain of our decision in
Parden”).
Atascadero was one of the decisions issued during the
course of this journey—and it does nothing to help the gov-
ernment’s cause. In Parden, the Court had held that a pri-
vate individual could sue “a railroad owned and operated by
Alabama . . . under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.”
College Savings Bank, 527 U. S., at 676. This was so “[d]es-
pite the absence of any provision in the statute specifically
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 13
Opinion of the Court
referring to the States.” Ibid. Why? Because the Act ap-
plied “to ‘every’ common carrier by railroad in interstate
commerce,” and Alabama’s railroad met that description.
Parden, 377 U. S., at 187. When later faced with a similar
statute—one that permitted suit against “ ‘any recipient of
Federal assistance’ ”—the Atascadero Court rejected
Parden’s reasoning, holding that this sort of “general au-
thorization for suit in federal court is not the kind of une-
quivocal statutory language sufficient to abrogate” state
sovereign immunity. 473 U. S., at 245–246. “When Con-
gress chooses to subject the States to federal jurisdiction,”
the Court continued, “it must do so specifically.” Id., at 246.
Understood in context, then, Atascadero stands only for the
now-familiar proposition that Congress must, at a mini-
mum, mention the government when it wishes to scrap sov-
ereign immunity and permit claims for damages. The deci-
sion does not—contrary to the government’s submission—
counsel against recognizing a waiver of sovereign immunity
when Congress authorizes suit against “any person” and
takes the further step of expressly defining that term to in-
clude “any . . . government . . . agency.”
Employees was another case decided during the long re-
treat from Parden. And, on first encounter, it might seem
more promising for the government. That case concerned
the FLSA, which authorizes actions against “employer[s]”
for unpaid overtime, and the question whether that law
clearly permitted suit against state agencies. See Employ-
ees, 411 U. S., at 282. As originally drafted, the Act defined
the term “employer” to exclude state agencies. Ibid. But a
later amendment to the statute’s definitional section
brought some state agencies within its reach. Id., at 282–
283. Recognizing that “the literal language” of the Act as
amended covered some state agencies, the Court neverthe-
less concluded that Congress had not spoken clearly enough
to abrogate state sovereign immunity. See id., at 283, 285.
As the government sees it, the same logic applies with equal
14 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
RURAL HOUSING SERV. v. KIRTZ
Opinion of the Court
force here. Brief for Petitioner 25–28.
By its own terms, however, Employees is distinguishable.
The Employees Court stressed that, while Congress
amended the definitional section of the FLSA to include
States, it had not made any changes to the underlying lia-
bility provision. And, the Court reasoned, “it would be sur-
prising” to think Congress meant to deprive a State of im-
munity on the basis of a change to a definitional section
alone, without any accompanying change to the pertinent
liability provision. 411 U. S., at 285 (internal quotation
marks omitted). But what the FLSA lacked, the FCRA sup-
plies. As we have seen, Congress did amend the FCRA’s
liability provisions in 1996. In doing so, Congress replaced
the narrow class of defendants originally subject to suit for
money damages—consumer reporting agencies and users of
the information they supply. See Part I, supra; 84 Stat.
1134; §§1681n, 1681o (1970 ed.). In its stead, Congress pro-
vided that a different and much larger class of defendants—
“[a]ny person,” 110 Stat. 3009–446—may be sued for violat-
ing “any requirement” of the FCRA. §§1681n(a), 1681o(a).
And from the statute’s start, Congress has defined the term
“person” to include “any” government agency. 84 Stat.
1128; see §1681a(b).
There is another problem with the government’s invoca-
tion of Employees. Despite recognizing that “the literal lan-
guage of the” FLSA permitted suits against States, the Em-
ployees Court considered it all but dispositive that it could
not find “a word” in the Act’s legislative history indicating
that Congress wanted “to make it possible for a citizen of
that State or another State to sue the State in the federal
courts.” 411 U. S., at 283, 285. As should be clear by now,
that is not how this Court’s contemporary sovereign-
immunity doctrine works. With time, this Court has re-
solved that our task is to look for “a clear statement in the
text of the statute.” Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U. S. 277, 290
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 15
Opinion of the Court
(2011). And just as it is error to displace sovereign immun-
ity based on inferences from legislative history without
clear statutory direction (Parden), so it is error to grant sov-
ereign immunity based on inferences from legislative his-
tory in the face of clear statutory direction waiving that im-
munity (Employees). The government itself has elsewhere
recognized that such notions are “relic[s] from a ‘bygone era
of statutory construction.’ ” Food Marketing Institute, 588
U. S., at 437 (quoting Brief for United States as Amicus Cu-
riae in Food Marketing Institute, O. T. 2018, No. 18–481,
p. 19).
In saying this much, we do not wash our hands of Em-
ployees. No one before us questions that the decision is en-
titled to stare decisis effect with respect to the portions of
the FLSA it addressed. We recognize only that the Court
has since repeatedly disavowed the decision’s methodologi-
cal approach and cautioned against its use when consider-
ing claims of sovereign immunity in other contexts.2
B
In a final set of arguments, the government pursues a dif-
ferent theme. Now accepting the contemporary sovereign-
immunity principles we have outlined, the government con-
tends the provisions of the FCRA before us are still insuffi-
cient to abrogate immunity. Here, the government
acknowledges that §§1681n and 1681o expressly authorize
——————
2 Employees also appears to have rested in part on the Court’s views
about the constraints Congress faces when seeking to abrogate state sov-
ereign immunity, given the Constitution’s federal structure and the Elev-
enth Amendment. 411 U. S., at 284; see id., at 288 (Marshall, J., concur-
ring in result) (noting “[p]ortions of the Court’s opinion convey th[at]
impression”). It is yet another point of distinction between our case and
that one. We do not face today any question about Congress’s power un-
der the Constitution to abrogate state sovereign immunity, only a claim
against the USDA, a federal agency whose immunity Congress is free to
waive as it wishes. See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S.
30, 33 (1992).
16 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
RURAL HOUSING SERV. v. KIRTZ
Opinion of the Court
suits against “any person.” It acknowledges that §1681a
expressly defines “person” to include “any” federal agency.
But the government asks us to hold that §§1681n and 1681o
do not clearly waive sovereign immunity because they do
not “unambiguously incorporate” §1681a’s definition. Brief
for Petitioner 28.
That is no small ask. When Congress takes the trouble
to define the terms it uses, a court must respect its defini-
tions as “virtually conclusive.” Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U. S.
28, 56 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). This
Court will not deviate from an express statutory definition
merely because it “varies from [the] term’s ordinary mean-
ing.” Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 583 U. S. 149,
160 (2018). Nor will we disregard a statutory definition
simply because the question before us happens to involve
sovereign immunity. See Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S., at 57,
n. 9. Rather, this Court has said it will deviate from a stat-
utory definition only when applying the definition would be
“incompatible with Congress[’s] regulatory scheme” or
would “destro[y] one of the statute’s major purposes.” Dig-
ital Realty Trust, 583 U. S., at 163–164 (internal quotation
marks and alterations omitted).
The government does not even try to meet that standard
in this case. How could it? The government acknowledges
that federal agencies are among “ ‘the largest furnishers of
credit information in the country.’ ” Brief for Petitioner 38
(quoting Robinson, 590 U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.)
(slip op., at 3)). So applying the Act’s definitional and civil
liability provisions as written and allowing suits against
federal agencies to proceed would, if anything, seem con-
sistent with the Act’s goal of “ensur[ing] fair and accurate
credit reporting.” Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551
U. S. 47, 52 (2007).
Recognizing this problem, the government suggests a dif-
ferent kind of “[i]ncongruit[y]” would arise if §§1681n and
1681o incorporated §1681a’s definition of “person.” Brief for
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 17
Opinion of the Court
Petitioner 33. The government focuses on the fact that
§1681a’s definition of “person” includes not just federal
agencies but state entities as well. So giving that definition
effect in §§1681n and 1681o would render “not just the fed-
eral government, but also individual States” susceptible to
consumer suits for money damages. Ibid. And that result,
the government contends, is unthinkable. Unthinkable be-
cause Congress enacted the FCRA pursuant to the Consti-
tution’s Commerce Clause—a provision this Court has held
does not endow Congress with the power to abrogate state
sovereign immunity. Id., at 34; see Florida Prepaid Post-
secondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527
U. S. 627, 636 (1999) (“Congress may not abrogate state
sovereign immunity” through “the Commerce Clause”).
While the premise of the government’s argument is cor-
rect, its conclusion is not. If the FCRA is a piece of Com-
merce Clause legislation, the waiver of sovereign immunity
effected by §§1681n and 1681o might be constitutionally in-
valid as applied against individual States. But none of that
means we may disregard the statute’s clear terms. See
Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S., at 57, n. 9 (“We already have
found the clear statement rule satisfied, and that finding
renders the preference for avoiding a constitutional ques-
tion inapplicable”); United States v. Oakland Cannabis
Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 494 (2001) (“[T]he canon
of constitutional avoidance has no application in the ab-
sence of statutory ambiguity”). Instead, we ask two distinct
questions in cases involving claims of state sovereign im-
munity: “first, whether Congress unequivocally expressed
its intent to abrogate that immunity; and second, if it did,
whether Congress acted pursuant to a valid grant of consti-
tutional authority.” Kimel, 528 U. S., at 73. Often, this
Court has found, a federal statute does clearly seek to abro-
gate a State’s immunity but lacks constitutional authority
to accomplish that objective. See, e.g., id., at 67; Seminole
Tribe, 517 U. S., at 47; Allen v. Cooper, 589 U. S. 248, 255–
18 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
RURAL HOUSING SERV. v. KIRTZ
Opinion of the Court
256 (2020). Analytically, today’s case is no different. “[P]er-
son” means what the FCRA says it means, even if state de-
fendants might be able to raise a valid constitutional de-
fense to a consumer suit that the federal government
cannot.
Perhaps recognizing as much, the government pivots to a
discussion of the Act’s other enforcement mechanisms.
Most notably, the government points to §1681q, which
makes it a crime—punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or
both—for “[a]ny person” to “knowingly and willfully ob-
tai[n]” consumer information “under false pretenses.” As
the government sees it, the term “person” in this provision
cannot possibly bear its statutory definition because it is
“absur[d]” to think Congress might have authorized crimi-
nal enforcement against federal agencies. Brief for Peti-
tioner 31 (internal quotation marks omitted). What’s more,
the government submits, because the term “person” cannot
include “government” in §1681q, it cannot include “govern-
ment” in §§1681n and 1681o either. Id., at 30–31.
Again, however, that much does not follow. Suppose, as
the Third Circuit did when analyzing Mr. Kirtz’s claim, that
“[i]t would be absurd . . . to subject the federal government
to criminal prosecution.” 46 F. 4th, at 171–172. Suppose,
too, that this absurdity supplies the exceptional reason nec-
essary to deviate from §1681a’s definition of “person” in
§1681q’s criminal-enforcement provision. Even spotting
the government that much for argument’s sake, absurdity
is not contagious: The power to correct for an absurdity “in
one portion of a statute” does not imply a “license to distort
other provisions of the statute.” NLRB v. Health Care &
Retirement Corp. of America, 511 U. S. 571, 579 (1994).
And the government offers no basis for us to think that ap-
plying §1681a’s definition to the Act’s consumer-suit provi-
sions in §§1681n and 1681o—as opposed to its criminal pro-
visions in §1681q—would lead to absurd results. Our
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 19
Opinion of the Court
obligation therefore remains “to enforce” the statutes pres-
ently before us, each “according to its terms.” Hartford Un-
derwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U. S.
1, 6 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Consider the alternative. If we could ignore §1681a’s def-
inition of “person” when it comes to §§1681n and 1681o
simply because applying that definition to other statutory
provisions could lead to absurd results, where would
§1681a’s definition apply? Before the Seventh Circuit, the
government proposed this solution: treating federal agen-
cies as “person[s]” subject to all the Act’s “substantive re-
quirements” but exempt from any of its liability provisions.
Bormes v. United States, 759 F. 3d 793, 795 (2014). That
kind of “wholly artificial,” if surely convenient, distinction
lacks any grounding in the statutory text, 46 F. 4th, at 166,
and has no proper place in our jurisprudence, cf. Niz-
Chavez v. Garland, 593 U. S. 155, 172 (2021) (“[W]ords are
how the law constrains power”).
Venturing even further from the relevant statutory text,
the government offers one last argument. It observes that
the Privacy Act of 1974 covers some of the same ground we
attribute to the FCRA. Passed “to protect the privacy of
individuals identified in [federal] information systems,” 88
Stat. 1896, the Privacy Act addresses the government’s re-
tention and disclosure of personal information, see 5
U. S. C. §552a, including the disclosure of that information
to consumer reporting agencies, see 31 U. S. C. §3711(e). If
a federal agency supplies inaccurate information, the Pri-
vacy Act allows individuals to seek a court order requiring
it to correct its records. See 5 U. S. C. §§552a(g)(1)–(2).
Money damages are also sometimes available. §552a(g)(4).
Because these remedies have long been available to address
agency misconduct under the Privacy Act, the government
reasons, there was no reason for Congress to supplement
them with additional remedies under the FCRA.
20 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
RURAL HOUSING SERV. v. KIRTZ
Opinion of the Court
That’s an unusual argument. Even the government con-
cedes that, the Privacy Act notwithstanding, it is subject to
and liable under at least some provisions of the FCRA. E.g.,
Brief for Petitioner 34–35 (conceding the government may
be held liable under §1681u); id., at 28 (“Sometimes,” the
Act’s “use of the word ‘person’ . . . refers to the default stat-
utory definition in [§]1681a(b)”). Nor is the need to juggle
multiple and sometimes overlapping legal obligations an
unusual feature of contemporary American life for the gov-
ernment any more than it is for the governed. Recognizing
this fact—and mindful our role is to apply the law, not re-
write it—we approach federal statutes touching on the
same topic with a “strong presumption” they can coexist
harmoniously. See Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U. S.
497, 510 (2018) (internal quotation marks and alterations
omitted). Only by carrying a “heavy burden” can a party
convince us that one statute “displaces” a second. Ibid.
Where two laws are merely complementary—as is undis-
putedly the case here—our duty lies not in preferring one
over another but in giving effect to both. Gallardo v.
Marstiller, 596 U. S. 420, 432 (2022); see 46 F. 4th, at 176
(“USDA has not identified any actual inconsistency be-
tween the Privacy Act and the [FCRA]”).
*
The Executive Branch may question the wisdom of hold-
ing federal agencies accountable for their violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act; certainly the many and resource-
ful arguments it advances today suggest as much. But Con-
gress’s judgment commands our respect and the law it has
adopted speaks clearly: A consumer may sue “any” federal
agency for defying the law’s terms. Because it faithfully fol-
lowed this legislative direction, the judgment of the Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit is
Affirmed.