Document: 485 U.S. 395 108 S.Ct. 1204 99 L.Ed.2d 455 George E. BENNETT, Petitionerv.ARKANSAS. No. 86-6124. March 29, 1988. Thomas M. Carpenter, for petitioner. Richard J. Lazarus, the U.S., as amicus curiae supporting petitioner, by special leave of court. Steven Clark, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 This case involves an attempt State Arkansas to attach certain federal benefits paid individuals who are incarcerated in prisons. In 1981, adopted Prison Inmate Care and Custody Reimbursement Act, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 46-1701 et seq. (Supp.1985), a statute that authorizes seize prisoner's property or "estate" order help defray cost maintaining its prison system. The Act specifically defines include Social Security benefits, well other types pension retirement benefits. 46-1702(d).1 filed separate actions state court seeking had been petitioner Bennett Veterans' Administration (VA) disability were another inmate, Shelton. relevant part, inmates responded arguing violates Supremacy Clause Federal Constitution because it permits funds law exempts from legal process. particular, pointed 42 U.S.C. 407(a) (1982 ed., Supp. III), which provides "none moneys payable . under [the Act] shall be subject execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, process." Similarly, Shelton contended attachment his VA is inconsistent with 38 3101(a), such "shall exempt claim creditors, not liable seizure any equitable process whatever, either before after receipt beneficiary." 2 trial rejected inmates' arguments directed portion each their seized. Supreme Court affirmed, one justice dissenting. 290 Ark. 47, 716 S.W.2d 755 (1986). Briefly stated, found there no conflict between statutes "the contain implied exception exemption when care maintenance beneficiary social security veterans' funds." Id., at 49, S.W.2d, 756. We granted Bennett's petition certiorari. 484 895, 227, 98 186 (1987).2 3 think—contrary conclusion Arkansas—that clear inconsistency III). Section unambiguously rules out just allows those As we see it, this amounts "conflict" Clause—a cannot win. See Rose v. Police, 479 1, 107 334, 93 183 reject State's avoid contains "implied exception" would allow otherwise exempted payments simply has provided recipient "care maintenance." declined find Philpott Essex County Welfare Board, 409 413, 590, 34 608 (1973), where held 407 bars attempting reimbursement welfare assistance payments. may factually distinguishable on ground only part needs while here all prisoners' needs, Department Health Rehabilitative Services, Fla. Davis, 616 F.2d 828, 830 (CA5 1980) (relying distinction). But do think distinction carries day given express language intent Congress attachable. 4 Nor argument supported our decision last Term Rose, 481 619, 2029, 95 599 (1987). There 3101 did bar holding disabled veteran contempt failing pay child support, even though veteran's means paying obligation was use question designed support but also dependents. Accordingly, allowing enforce valid fully consistent underlying 3101, " 'prevent deprivation depletion subsistence' beneficiaries 630, S.Ct., 2036, (quoting S.Rep. 94-1243, pp. 147-148 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976 5241, 5368-5369). Here, contrast, said "beneficiary" petitioner's 5 judgment 6 Reversed. Stat.Ann. 46-1704(a) (Supp.1985) estate person penal facility Correction "may subjected payment expenses behalf prisoner." 46-1702(b) "any properties, tangible intangible, real personal, belonging due inmate confined institution Correction, including income Security, previously earned salary wages, bonuses, annuities, pensions source whatsoever." Shelton's certiorari docketed failure file affidavit accompany motion proceed forma pauperis. Court's Rule 46.1. Accordingly issue directly us propriety

Category: 9