Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 32

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–297 
_________________ 

TRANSUNION LLC, PETITIONER v. SERGIO L. 
RAMIREZ 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 25, 2021] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE BREYER, JUSTICE 

SOTOMAYOR, AND JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 

TransUnion  generated  credit  reports  that  erroneously 
flagged many law-abiding people as potential terrorists and 
drug traffickers.  In doing so, TransUnion violated several 
provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that en-
title consumers to accuracy in credit-reporting procedures; 
to receive information in their credit files; and to receive a 
summary of their rights.  Yet despite Congress’ judgment
that  such  misdeeds  deserve  redress,  the  majority  decides
that TransUnion’s actions are so insignificant that the Con-
stitution prohibits consumers from vindicating their rights 
in federal court.  The Constitution does no such thing. 

I 
For decades, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC) has compiled a list of “Specially Des-
ignated Nationals.”  The list largely includes terrorists and
drug  traffickers,  among  other  unseemly  types.    And,  as  a 
general matter, Americans are barred from doing business
with those listed.  In the wake of the September 11 attacks,
TransUnion began to sell a new (and more expensive) type
of credit report that flagged whether an individual’s name 
matched a name found on that list. 

The system TransUnion used to decide which individuals