Jump to content

Bennett v. Arkansas

From Wikisource


Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988)
the Supreme Court of the United States
Syllabus

Cite as: Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988) (per curiam).

4397662Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988) — Syllabus1988the Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

485 U.S. 395

BENNETT  v.  ARKANSAS

Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas

No. 86-6124.  Argued: Mar. 2, 1988 --- Decided: Mar. 29, 1988

Relying on an Arkansas statute authorizing the State to seize a prisoner's property, including his Social Security benefits, in order to help defray the cost of maintaining its prison system, Arkansas filed suit in state court to attach petitioner's Social Security benefits. The trial court directed that a portion of petitioner's benefits be seized, rejecting his argument that the state law violates the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution because it permits the State to attach funds that are exempt from legal process under 42 U.S.C. § 407(a). The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, holding that there is no conflict between the state and federal statutes because § 407(a) contains an "implied exception to exemption from legal process" when a State provides for a Social Security recipient's care and maintenance.

Held: The Arkansas statute violates the Supremacy Clause. There is no "implied exception" to the express language of § 407(a) and its clear intent that Social Security benefits not be attachable, even though the State provides for all of petitioner's needs. The State is not a statutorily intended beneficiary of petitioner's Social Security benefits. Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, distinguished.

290 Ark. 47, 716 S.W.2d 755, reversed.

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.

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.

J. Steven Clark, Attorney General of Arkansas, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Clint Miller, Assistant Attorney General.*

Notes

[edit]

*   Michael John Mirra and Robert A. Stalker filed a brief for Lawrence McDowell as amicus curiae urging reversal.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse