×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Seizure Of Federal Benefits By State Unconstitutional
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no part of a prisoner's Social Security
benefits or Veterans Administration benefits could be confiscated by the
state as reimbursement for incarceration costs. After the Arkansas
legislature passed the State Prison Inmate Care and Custody Reimbursement
Act (1981), allowing a prisoner's "estate"( which specifically includes
pension and retirement benefits) to be seized for incarceration costs, the
state filed two separate actions: one attempting to attach a prisoner's
social security benefits, the other to attach a prisoner's VA disability
benefits. An Arkansas circuit court ruled in the State's favor. The
Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, 290 Ark. 47, 716 S.W.2d 755 (1986) even
though seizure or attachment of those payments is forbidden by federal
statues 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (1982 ed., Supp. III) and 38 U.S.C. § 3101(a).
They reasoned that there was an "implied exception in the federal statutes
which allowed them to attach the benefits for costs associated with the
care and custody of prisoners. The U.S. Supreme Court held, however, that
there was no "implied exception" and that any attempt by the state to
attach these benefits violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. See index for other citations in this case. See: Bennet v.
Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395, 108 S.Ct. 1204, 99 L.Ed.2d 455 (1988).
benefits or Veterans Administration benefits could be confiscated by the
state as reimbursement for incarceration costs. After the Arkansas
legislature passed the State Prison Inmate Care and Custody Reimbursement
Act (1981), allowing a prisoner's "estate"( which specifically includes
pension and retirement benefits) to be seized for incarceration costs, the
state filed two separate actions: one attempting to attach a prisoner's
social security benefits, the other to attach a prisoner's VA disability
benefits. An Arkansas circuit court ruled in the State's favor. The
Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, 290 Ark. 47, 716 S.W.2d 755 (1986) even
though seizure or attachment of those payments is forbidden by federal
statues 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (1982 ed., Supp. III) and 38 U.S.C. § 3101(a).
They reasoned that there was an "implied exception in the federal statutes
which allowed them to attach the benefits for costs associated with the
care and custody of prisoners. The U.S. Supreme Court held, however, that
there was no "implied exception" and that any attempt by the state to
attach these benefits violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. See index for other citations in this case. See: Bennet v.
Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395, 108 S.Ct. 1204, 99 L.Ed.2d 455 (1988).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Bennet v. Arkansas
| Year | 1988 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 485 U.S. 395, 108 S.Ct. 1204, 99 L.Ed.2d 455 (1988 |
| Level | Supreme Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
GEORGE S. BENNETT v. ARKANSAS, 108 S. Ct. 1204, 485 U.S. 395 (U.S. 03/29/1988)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[2] No. 86-6124
[3] 108 S.Ct. 1204, 485 U.S. 395, 99 L.Ed.2d 455, 1988
[4] decided: March 29, 1988.
[5] GEORGE S. BENNETT, PETITIONER
v.
ARKANSAS
[6] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
[7] Thomas M. Carpenter, by appointment of the Court, 484 U.S. 921, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Charles L. Carpenter and Charles L. Carpenter, Jr.
[8] Richard J. Lazarus argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. On the brief were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Willard, Deputy Solicitor General Merrill, Charles A. Rothfeld, John F. Cordes, and John P. Schnitker.
[9] J. Steven Clark, Attorney General of Arkansas, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Clint Miller, Assistant Attorney General.*fn*
[10] Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy.
[ 485 U.S. Page 396]
[11] PER CURIAM.
[12] This case involves an attempt by the State of Arkansas to attach certain federal benefits paid to individuals who are incarcerated in Arkansas prisons. In 1981, Arkansas adopted the State Prison Inmate Care and Custody Reimbursement Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 46-1701 et seq. (Supp. 1985), a statute that authorizes the State to seize a prisoner's property or "estate" in order to help defray the cost of maintaining its prison system. The Act specifically defines "estate" to include a prisoner's federal Social Security benefits, as well as other types of pension or retirement benefits. § 46-1702(d).*fn1 The State filed separate actions in state court seeking to attach Social Security benefits that had been paid to petitioner Bennett and Veterans' Administration (VA) disability pension benefits that were paid to another inmate, Shelton. In relevant part, the inmates responded by arguing that the Arkansas statute violates the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution because it permits the State to attach funds that federal law exempts from legal process. In particular, petitioner pointed to 42 U. S. C. § 407(a) (1982 ed., Supp. III), which provides that "none of the moneys paid or payable . . . under [the Social Security Act] shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process." Similarly, Shelton contended that attachment of his VA benefits is inconsistent with 38 U. S. C. § 3101(a), which provides that such benefits "shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or
[ 485 U.S. Page 397]
under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary."
[13] The state trial court rejected the inmates' arguments and directed that a portion of each of their benefits be seized. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, with one justice dissenting. 290 Ark. 47, 716 S. W. 2d 755 (1986). Briefly stated, the court found that there is no conflict between the federal and state statutes because "the federal statutes contain an implied exception to the exemption from legal process when the State provides for the care and maintenance of a beneficiary of social security or veterans' funds." Id., at 49, 716 S. W. 2d, at 756. We granted Bennett's petition for certiorari.484 U.S. 895 (1987). *fn2
[14] We think -- contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas -- that there is a clear inconsistency between the Arkansas statute and 42 U. S. C. § 407(a). Section 407(a) unambiguously rules out any attempt to attach Social Security benefits. The Arkansas statute just as unambiguously allows the State to attach those benefits. As we see it, this amounts to a "conflict" under the Supremacy Clause -- a conflict that the State cannot win. See Rose v. Arkansas State Police,479 U.S. 1 (1986). We reject the State's attempt to avoid this conclusion by arguing that the federal statute contains an "implied exception" that would allow attachment of otherwise exempted federal payments simply because the State has provided the recipient with "care and maintenance." We declined to find such an exception in Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board,409 U.S. 413 (1973), where we held that § 407 bars a State from attempting to attach Social Security benefits as reimbursement for state welfare assistance payments.
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[2] No. 86-6124
[3] 108 S.Ct. 1204, 485 U.S. 395, 99 L.Ed.2d 455, 1988
[4] decided: March 29, 1988.
[5] GEORGE S. BENNETT, PETITIONER
v.
ARKANSAS
[6] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
[7] Thomas M. Carpenter, by appointment of the Court, 484 U.S. 921, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Charles L. Carpenter and Charles L. Carpenter, Jr.
[8] Richard J. Lazarus argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. On the brief were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Willard, Deputy Solicitor General Merrill, Charles A. Rothfeld, John F. Cordes, and John P. Schnitker.
[9] J. Steven Clark, Attorney General of Arkansas, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Clint Miller, Assistant Attorney General.*fn*
[10] Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy.
[ 485 U.S. Page 396]
[11] PER CURIAM.
[12] This case involves an attempt by the State of Arkansas to attach certain federal benefits paid to individuals who are incarcerated in Arkansas prisons. In 1981, Arkansas adopted the State Prison Inmate Care and Custody Reimbursement Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 46-1701 et seq. (Supp. 1985), a statute that authorizes the State to seize a prisoner's property or "estate" in order to help defray the cost of maintaining its prison system. The Act specifically defines "estate" to include a prisoner's federal Social Security benefits, as well as other types of pension or retirement benefits. § 46-1702(d).*fn1 The State filed separate actions in state court seeking to attach Social Security benefits that had been paid to petitioner Bennett and Veterans' Administration (VA) disability pension benefits that were paid to another inmate, Shelton. In relevant part, the inmates responded by arguing that the Arkansas statute violates the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution because it permits the State to attach funds that federal law exempts from legal process. In particular, petitioner pointed to 42 U. S. C. § 407(a) (1982 ed., Supp. III), which provides that "none of the moneys paid or payable . . . under [the Social Security Act] shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process." Similarly, Shelton contended that attachment of his VA benefits is inconsistent with 38 U. S. C. § 3101(a), which provides that such benefits "shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or
[ 485 U.S. Page 397]
under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary."
[13] The state trial court rejected the inmates' arguments and directed that a portion of each of their benefits be seized. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, with one justice dissenting. 290 Ark. 47, 716 S. W. 2d 755 (1986). Briefly stated, the court found that there is no conflict between the federal and state statutes because "the federal statutes contain an implied exception to the exemption from legal process when the State provides for the care and maintenance of a beneficiary of social security or veterans' funds." Id., at 49, 716 S. W. 2d, at 756. We granted Bennett's petition for certiorari.484 U.S. 895 (1987). *fn2
[14] We think -- contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas -- that there is a clear inconsistency between the Arkansas statute and 42 U. S. C. § 407(a). Section 407(a) unambiguously rules out any attempt to attach Social Security benefits. The Arkansas statute just as unambiguously allows the State to attach those benefits. As we see it, this amounts to a "conflict" under the Supremacy Clause -- a conflict that the State cannot win. See Rose v. Arkansas State Police,479 U.S. 1 (1986). We reject the State's attempt to avoid this conclusion by arguing that the federal statute contains an "implied exception" that would allow attachment of otherwise exempted federal payments simply because the State has provided the recipient with "care and maintenance." We declined to find such an exception in Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board,409 U.S. 413 (1973), where we held that § 407 bars a State from attempting to attach Social Security benefits as reimbursement for state welfare assistance payments.