Bennett v. Arkansas, 86-6124

Decision Date29 March 1988
Docket NumberNo. 86-6124,86-6124
PartiesGeorge E. BENNETT, Petitioner v. ARKANSAS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Thomas M. Carpenter, for petitioner.

Richard J. Lazarus, for the U.S., as amicus curiae supporting petitioner, by special leave of court.

J. Steven Clark, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

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).1 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 under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary."

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) [Fastcase Editorial Note: The Court's reference to 290 Ark. 47, 716 S.W.2d 755 is short for Bennett v. State, 290 Ark. 47, 716 S.W.2d 755]. 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, 108 S.Ct. 227, 98 L.Ed.2d 186 (1987).2

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) (1982 ed., Supp. III). 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, 107 S.Ct. 334, 93 L.Ed.2d 183 (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, 93 S.Ct. 590, 34 L.Ed.2d 608 (1973), where we held that § 407 bars a State from attempting to attach Social Security benefits as reimbursement for state welfare assistance pay- ments. Philpott may be factually distinguishable on the ground that there the State provided for only part of the needs of the Social Security recipient while here the State provides for all of the prisoners' needs, see Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, State of Fla. v. Davis, 616 F.2d 828, 830 (CA5 1980) (relying on such a distinction). But we do not think that such a distinction carries the day given the express language of § 407(a) and the clear intent of Congress that Social Security benefits not be attachable.

Nor do we think that the State's "implied exception" argument is supported by our decision last Term in Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 107 S.Ct. 2029, 95 L.Ed.2d 599 (1987). There we held that 38 U.S.C. § 3101 did not bar a state court from holding a disabled veteran...

To continue reading

Request your trial
107 cases
  • Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of US, Inc. v. Abrams
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 28 Octubre 1988
    ...that "this amounts to a `conflict' under the Supremacy Clause — a conflict that the State cannot win." Bennett v. Arkansas, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 1204, 1205, 99 L.Ed.2d 455 (1988). The Kentucky Court did not have the benefit of this guidance when it rendered its decision in Chrysler v. We......
  • In re Robinson, Bankruptcy No. 95-71118-TBB-7. Adversary No. 96-00525.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 29 Septiembre 1999
    ...law may preclude garnishment of these monies. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C.S. 407 (1998); 29 U.S.C.S. § 1056 (1998); Bennett v. Ark., 485 U.S. 395, 108 S.Ct. 1204, 99 L.Ed.2d 455 (1988). 13 (a) No waiver of exemption in any written instrument shall be held to apply to or include or authorize the lev......
  • Gean v. Hattaway
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 6 Junio 2003
    ...garnishment, or other legal process" to reach the monies paid out to a Social Security beneficiary. See Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395, 397, 108 S.Ct. 1204, 99 L.Ed.2d 455 (1988); Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 U.S. 413, 415-16, 93 S.Ct. 590, 34 L.Ed.2d 608 (1973). Plaintiffs ......
  • Guardianship Estate of Keffeler v. DSHS
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 11 Octubre 2001
    ...denied, 352 U.S. 918, 77 S.Ct. 216, 1 L.Ed.2d 124 (1956). As the United States Supreme Court noted in Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395, 397, 108 S.Ct. 1204, 99 L.Ed.2d 455 (1988), any state law contrary to § 407(a) runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause. Accord Crawford v. Gould, 56 F.3d 1162,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Road to Bush v. Gore:1 the History of the Supreme Court's Use of the Per Curiam Opinion
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 79, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...State Police, 479 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1986). For another Supremacy Clause case, this time one argued to the Court, see Bennett v. Arkansas*, 485 U.S. 395 (1988), where the Court found an Arkansas statute authorizing attachment of Social Security benefits to be in conflict with federal law and reve......
  • When MIRA liens trump attorney fee claims: a harsh result in light of Karpierz?
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 74 No. 2, March 2009
    • 22 Marzo 2009
    ...that 5 U.S.C. [section] 8346(a)'s prohibition of execution against federal disability payments preempted MIRA); Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395, 397 (1988) (holding that the Supremacy Clause preempted an Arkansas reimbursement act similar to MIRA, prohibiting it from attaching to funds di......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT