Lockhart v. United States (2005)

Last updated
Lockhart v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 2, 2005
Decided December 7, 2005
Full case nameJames Lockhart v. United States
Citations546 U.S. 142 ( more )
126 S. Ct. 699; 163 L. Ed. 2d 557
Case history
Prior376 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 544 U.S. 998(2005).
Holding
The government can offset Social Security benefits to collect on student loan debt that is over 10 years old.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityO'Connor, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceScalia

Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning whether the United States government can offset Social Security benefits to collect on student loan debt over 10 years old. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision that allowed the offset by the government.

Contents

Background

The Debt Collection Act of 1982 allows the federal government to collect on debt by offsetting administrative payments. [1] Social Security benefits are not exempt but have specific limitations as set forth in 42 USC §407, which states:

[N]one of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law. No other provision of law, enacted before, on, or after April 20, 1983, may be construed to limit, supersede, or otherwise modify the provisions of this section except to the extent that it does so by express reference to this section. [2]

However, debts older than 10 years old are generally protected from collection under the 1982 Debt Collection Act. [3] This prohibition was revised under the Higher Education Technical Amendments, which specifically eliminated time restriction on the collection of a number of loan types, including student loans. [4] This, however, did not apply to the offset of Social Security benefits as it did not specifically amend that act. The Debt Collection Act of 1996 made specific reference to 42 USC §407 in stating that "all payment due an individual under ... the Social Security Act ... shall be subject to offset under this section." [5]

Facts of the case

James Lockhart received $874 per month in Social Security payments and $10 per month in food stamps. [6] At 67 years old, this was his only source of income, which he used for necessities such as food, housing, and medication. He had been unemployed since 1981 (save a few months of employment in 1987), and, to try to improve his chances of getting a job, Lockhart began attending various higher educational institutions from 1984 to 1990. [7] Between 1984 and 1989, Lockhart incurred student loans which were reinsured by the federal government under the Guaranteed Student Loan Program. After failing to repay his loans, they were reassigned to the Department of Education and, through the Treasury Offset Program, were certified to the Department of the Treasury. [8]

In April 2002, the government notified Lockhart that a portion of his Social Security benefits would be withheld in order to collect on his delinquent debt. [7] The initial offset was $93 but, after an increase in benefits, the offset was raised reaching a maximum of $143.10. [9] Some of the loans being collected on were over 10 years delinquent. Lockhart brought suit which was dismissed and judged in favor of the United States. Lockhart appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the offset is not subject to the statute of limitations in 31 USC §3716(e)(1), and affirmed the lower court's judgement against Lockhart. [10] The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split between the Eighth and Ninth Circuits. [11]

At oral arguments, Lockhart, represented by Brian Wolfman, advanced the argument that the government lacks the authority to offset benefits for loans over 10 years delinquent. They argued that when a law overrides the Social Security Act's ban on offsets by explicit reference to 42 USC §407, the authority extends only as far as that granted in the statute with the express reference. As such, they argue, "the Debt Collection Act [of 1996], the statute that contains that express reference, prohibits offsets to collect claims that have been outstanding for more than 10 years." [12] Justice Scalia raised the issue of whether the "magic words" required by §407 can nullify the intent of a later Congress if they had a clear intent to overrule the statute but did not use the required phrase. [12] Respondents, represented by Lisa Blatt, argued that the text of Higher Education Technical Amendment in 1991 was unqualified and affected laws before and after its passage. They further argued that the 1996 Debt Collection Act had no impact on the limitations on debt collection saying that,

All that happened was that Congress, in essence, put Social Security benefits on par, equal footing, with all other Federal payments .... the [Higher Education Technical Amendment] applies unless it's been repealed. And there's just nothing in the Debt Collection Act that comes close to repealing the [Higher Education Technical Amendment], because it doesn't address the subject of student loans. [12]

Opinion of the Court

Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Sandra Day O'Connor.jpg
Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the government can offset Social Security benefits to collect on loans delinquent for more than 10 years. The Court did not rule on the issue of "express-reference provisions" like that in §407 as it was satisfied by the Debt Collection Act of 1996. However the Court did hold that the Higher Education Technical Amendment need not have a specific reference to §407 as §407(b) only requires a reference to authorize attachment in the first place, which the Debt Collection Act of 1996 did. While Lockhart argued that the Higher Education Technical Amendment only applied to previous statutes, the Court, citing Union Bank v. Wolas , rejected that argument "The fact that Congress may not have foreseen all of the consequences of a statutory enactment is not a sufficient reason for refusing to give effect to its plain meaning." [13]

Scalia's concurrence

Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion in which he argued that the express-reference provision of §407 is not binding. Scalia, citing a number of decisions, argued that "[o]ne legislature ... cannot abridge the powers of a succeeding legislature." [14] Following that premise, he contended that an act with an express-reference provision can be overruled by implicit reference without regard for the express-reference provision as long as the legislative intent is clear. Because of this, he argued that the Higher Education Technical Amendment and the Debt Collection Act of 1996 unambiguously contradict and thus repealed §407 and is effective even if the express-reference provision is not fulfilled. [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

In the United States, Social Security is the commonly used term for the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and is administered by the Social Security Administration. The original Social Security Act was signed into law by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935, and the current version of the Act, as amended, encompasses several social welfare and social insurance programs.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–1 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act from 1968 was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials.

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), is a case of the United States Supreme Court that unanimously struck down St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance and reversed the conviction of a teenager, referred to in court documents only as R.A.V., for burning a cross on the lawn of an African-American family since the ordinance was held to violate the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

United States Senate Committee on Finance Standing committee of the US Senate; deals with matters relating to taxation, debts, trade, etc.

The United States Senate Committee on Finance is a standing committee of the United States Senate. The Committee concerns itself with matters relating to taxation and other revenue measures generally, and those relating to the insular possessions; bonded debt of the United States; customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery; deposit of public moneys; general revenue sharing; health programs under the Social Security Act and health programs financed by a specific tax or trust fund; national social security; reciprocal trade agreements; tariff and import quotas, and related matters thereto; and the transportation of dutiable goods. It is considered to be one of the most powerful committees in Congress.

Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. The decision of the Court, in a six-to-three majority, was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens.

A means test is a determination of whether an individual or family is eligible for government assistance or welfare, based upon whether the individual or family possesses the means to do without that help.

PAYGO is the practice in the United States of financing expenditures with funds that are currently available rather than borrowed.

In discussions of the cost of college in the United States, the cost of attendance (COA) is a statutory term for the estimated full and reasonable cost of completing a full academic year as a full-time student. The cost of attendance is published by each educational institution and includes:

A debt buyer is a company, sometimes a collection agency, a private debt collection law firm, or a private investor, that purchases delinquent or charged-off debts from a creditor or lender for a percentage of the face value of the debt based on the potential collectibility of the accounts. The debt buyer can then collect on its own, utilize the services of a third-party collection agency, repackage and resell portions of the purchased portfolio, or use any combination of these options.

Student loans are a form of financial aid intended to help students access higher education. Student loan debt in the United States has grown rapidly since 2006. The total debt was $1.73 trillion by July 2021, with almost half of that being graduate school loans; the average Bachelor's degree borrower has about $30,000 of debt upon graduation.

An anti-pornography movement in the United States has existed since before the 1969 Supreme Court decision of Stanley v. Georgia, which held that people could view whatever they wished in the privacy of their own homes, by establishing an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law. This led President Lyndon B. Johnson, with the backing of Congress, to appoint a commission to study pornography. The anti-pornography movement seeks to maintain or restore restrictions and to increase or create restrictions on the production, sale or distribution of pornography.

Eunique v. Powell, 281 F.3d 940, challenging passport denial for child support arrearage under 42 U.S.C. § 652(k) and enacted as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996, is the second cornerstone of the Court's thinking on passport denial/revocation under this law.

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001), is a decision of the US Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of funding restrictions imposed by the US Congress. At issue were restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a private, nonprofit corporation established by Congress. The restrictions prohibited LSC attorneys from representing clients attempting to amend existing welfare law. The case was brought by Carmen Velazquez, whose LSC-funded attorneys sought to challenge existing welfare provisions since they believed that it was the only way to get Velazquez financial relief.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

History of Social Security in the United States

A limited form of the Social Security program began as a measure to implement "social insurance" during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50 percent.

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that the First Amendment forbids a government entity from basing its decision to promote, transfer, recall, or hire low-level public employees based upon their party affiliation.

Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2014

The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2014 is a bill that would modify the budgetary treatment of federal credit programs. The bill would require that the cost of direct loans or loan guarantees be recognized in the federal budget on a fair-value basis using guidelines set forth by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. The bill would also require the federal budget to reflect the net impact of programs administered by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The changes made by the bill would mean that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were counted on the budget instead of considered separately and would mean that the debt of those two programs would be included in the national debt. These programs themselves would not be changed, but how they are accounted for in the United States federal budget would be. The goal of the bill is to improve the accuracy of how some programs are accounted for in the federal budget.

Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), follows up on the Supreme Court's 2011 case of the same name in which it had reversed the Third Circuit and concluded that both individuals and states can bring a Tenth Amendment challenge to federal law. The case was remanded to the Third Circuit, for a decision on the merits, which again ruled against Bond. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded again, ruling that the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 did not reach Bond's actions and she could not be charged under that federal law.

Lockhart v. United States may refer to:

References

  1. ↑ 31 U.S.C.   § 3716
  2. ↑ 42 U.S.C.   § 407(a)–(b)
  3. ↑ 31 U.S.C.   § 3716(e)(1)
  4. ↑ 20 U.S.C.   § 1091a(a)(2)
  5. ↑ 31 U.S.C.   § 3716(c)(3)(A)(i)
  6. ↑ Brief for petitioner at 11, Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)
  7. 1 2 Shah, Paras N. (2006). "LOCKHART V. UNITED STATES: DECAPITATING THE NEW DEAL & IGNORING THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND DEBT COLLECTION IMPROVEMENT ACTS". Administrative Law Review. 58 (2): 455–484. JSTOR   40711962.
  8. ↑ Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142, 143 (2005)
  9. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (7 December 2005). "Court allows student loan offset, rules on lawyer fees". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 26 March 2016.
  10. ↑ Lockhart v. United States, 376F.3d1027 (9th Cir.2004).
  11. ↑ Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142, 144 (2005).
  12. 1 2 3 Oral Arguments, Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)
  13. ↑ Union Bank v. Wolas, 502 U.S. 151, 158 (1991)
  14. ↑ Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (Scalia, J., dissenting) citing Fletcher v. Peck , 10 U.S. 87, 87 (1810)
  15. ↑ Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (Scalia, J., dissenting)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.