Document: 546 U.S. ___ (2005) JAMES LOCKHART, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES, ET AL. No. 04-881. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 2, 2005. Decided December 7, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE STATES COURT APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. SCALIA, filed concurring opinion. We consider whether States may offset Social Security benefits to collect student loan debt that has been outstanding over 10 years. I A James Lockhart failed repay federally reinsured loans he had incurred between 1984 and 1989 under Guaranteed Student Loan Program. These were eventually reassigned Department Education, which certified Treasury through Offset In 2002, Government began withholding portion petitioner's payments his debt, some was more than years delinquent. sued in Federal District Court, alleging Debt Collection Act's 10-year statute limitations, time barred. The dismissed complaint, Appeals Ninth Circuit affirmed. 376 F.3d 1027 (2004). granted certiorari, 544 U. S. (2005), resolve conflict Eighth Circuit, see Lee Paige, 1179 (CA8 2004), now affirm. B Act 1982, as amended, provides that, after pursuing collection channels set out 31 C. §3711(a), an agency head can "by administrative offset." §3716(a). availability offsets against is limited, Act, 49 Stat. 620, makes benefits, general, not "subject execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process." 42 §407(a). purports protect this anti-attachment rule with express-reference provision: "No provision law, enacted before, on, April 20, 1983, be construed limit, supersede, otherwise modify provisions section except extent it does so by express reference section." §407(b). Moreover, generally do authorize claims which, like debts at issue here, are old. §3716(e)(1). 1991, however, Higher Education Technical Amendments, 105 123, sweepingly eliminated limitations certain loans: "Notwithstanding any . no limitation shall terminate period within suit filed, judgment enforced, offset, action initiated taken," 20 §1091a(a)(2), repayment various loans, including §1091a(a)(2)(D). their terms, did make subject offset; these still protected rule. Only 1996 Improvement Actin amending recodifying Actprovide "[n]otwithstanding law (including [§407] )," limited exception relevant "all payment due individual §3716(c)(3)(A)(i). II contend "notwithstanding" clauses both Amendments trump provision. Cf. Marcello Bonds, 349 302, 310 (1955) ("Exemptions from terms lightly presumed view statement modifications must express[.] But [u]nless we require Congress employ magical passwords order effectuate exemption hold present expressly supersedes Act" (citation omitted)); Great Northern R. Co. States, 208 452, 465 (1908). need decide effect such §407(b) case. Because clearly exactly sort says necessary supersede It clear remove limit would bar offsetting pay off debt. argues could have intended 1991 repeal benefitssince authorized until five later. Therefore, petitioner continues, Amendments' abrogation limits only applies then-valid means collection. disagree. "The fact foreseen all consequences statutory enactment sufficient reason refusing give its plain meaning." Union Bank Wolas, 502 151, 158 (1991). points unlike explicitly mention §407. requires attachment first placewhich already provided. III Nor recodification help petitioner. addition adding authority retained general on authority. mere retention previously apply contextsa result extend far beyond since imply dead letter kind offset. Rather, retain context. Finally, decline read meaning into 2004 effort amend See H. 5025, 108th Cong., 2d Sess., §642 (Sept. 8, 2004); 2806, 15, 2004). "[F]ailed legislative proposals `a particularly dangerous ground rest interpretation prior statute.'" Craft, 535 274, 287 (2002) (quoting Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation LTV Corp., 496 633, 650 (1990)). event, unclear what even if inclined so, amendmentwhich benefitswould different advance today. affirm Circuit. ordered. JUSTICE concurring. agree requirement §207(b) binding, met here; join because binding. go further, say not. "[O]ne legislature," Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "cannot abridge powers succeeding legislature." Fletcher Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 135 (1810). correctness principle, respects legislation," asserted, "can never controverted." Ibid. also Marbury Madison, 1 137, 177 (1803) (unlike Constitution, "alterable when legislature please alter it"); W. Blackstone, Commentaries Laws England 90 (1765) ("Acts parliament derogatory power subsequent parliaments bind not"); T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 125-126 (1868) (reprint 1987). Our cases uniformly endorsed principle. See, e.g., Winstar 518 839, 872 (1996) (plurality opinion); Reichelderfer Quinn, 315, 318 (1932) ("[T]he will particular impose itself upon those follow years"); Manigault Springs, 199 473, 487 (1905); Newton Commissioners, 100 548, 559 (1880) (in involving "public interests" laws," "there irrepealable law"); L. Tribe, American Law §2-3, p. 125, n. (3d ed. 2000). Among cannot is, course, known whatever fashion deems appropriate pre-existing simply contradicting them. Thus, 302 (1955), interpreted Immigration Nationality impliedly exempting deportation hearings procedures Administrative Procedure (APA), despite §12 APA "[n]o legislation held expressly," 60 244. refused "to Act." U.S., 310. made well, express-statement nullify unambiguous import statute. (1908), said "[a]s question force statute, justify disregard manifested either implication enactment." (Emphasis added.) Congress, said, exempt requirements "fair implication" without statement. Warden Marrero, 417 653, 659-660, (1974). Hertz Woodman, 218 205, (1910). To sure, function background canons presumptively aware. For example, asserted exemptions "not presumed" light requirement, Marcello, supra, 310; Shaughnessy Pedreiro, 48, 51 (1955). That assertion add little nothing our already-powerful presumption implied repeals. "We repeatedly stated absent established congressional intention, repeals favored. An found where two statutes irreconcilable conflict, latter covers whole earlier one substitute." Branch Smith, 538 254, 273 (2003) opinion) (internal quotation marks citations omitted). Morton Mancari, S 535, 551 (1974).When later directly conflicts governs, regardless compliance earlier-enacted "magical password." reasons forth majority opinion, unambiguously authorized, exception, 10-year-old student-loan payments. doing flatly contradicted, thereby effectively repealed, part §207(a) Act. This effective, fulfilled. Despite jurisprudence subject, regrettably uncommon attempt burden future exercise requirements. §109; 5 §559; 25 §1735(b); §2000bb3(b); 50 §§1547(a)(1), 1621(b). case, might seem respectful refrain declaring invalidity suppose depend mind: provision, current whose expressed intent designed frustrate. think favor Members who assist drafting legislation, keep secret ineffective.

Category: 8