Legal Document

481 U.S. 619 107 S.Ct. 2029 95 L.Ed.2d 599 Charlie Wayne ROSE, Appellantv.Barbara Ann McNeil ROSE and Tennessee. No. 85-1206. Argued March 4, 1987. Decided May 18, Syllabus Appellant, a totally disabled veteran whose main source of income is federal veterans' benefits, was held in contempt by the state trial court for failure to pay child support, amount which had been fixed after considering appellant's benefits be under Tennessee statute. The State Court Appeals affirmed, rejecting contention that Veterans' Administration (VA) has exclusive jurisdiction specify payments support from disability it provides. determined Congress intended beneficiary his dependents, court's order directing appellant portion those as or did not undermine substantial interest. Held: A hold failing even if veteran's only means satisfying this obligation utilize received compensation service-connected disability. statute, construed courts authorize an award pre-empted Supremacy Clause Article VI since does conflict with law. Pp. 625-636. (a) Title 38 U.S.C. § 3107(a)(2), gives VA discretionary authority apportion on behalf children, grant paid indicate exercise VA's discretion could yield independent determinations existing state-court orders. Moreover, implementing regulations, simply apportionment "the reasonably discharging her [child support] responsibility . .," contain few guidelines no specific procedures bringing claims. Furthermore, construe 3107(a)(2) pre-emptive open reconsideration vast number divorce decrees affecting veterans lead future cases piecemeal litigation before VA. Given traditional over their unparalleled familiarity local economic factors issue, experience applying statutes detailed procedures, seems certain would have more explicit meant power displace authority. 626-628. (b) 211(a), provides decisions dependents are final, conclusive, subject review any other official court, vest nor pre-empt enforce obligation. Section 211(a) makes reference jurisdiction. its purpose achieving uniformity administration threatened proceedings, do eligibility primary focus section. party proceeding, subjected additional burden, prevention also 211(a). 628-630. (c) State-court 3101(a), made to, account of, beneficiary, shall liable attachment, levy, seizure. Neither 3101(a)'s purposes—to avoid being placed position collection agency prevent deprivation depletion subsistence—is constrained allowing contempt. obliged participate proceedings directly appellee. legislative history establishes provide families. Wissner v. Wissner, 338 655, 70 398, 94 L.Ed. 424, Hisquierdo Hisquierdo, 439 572, 99 802, 59 1, Ridgway Ridgway, 454 46, 102 49, 639, distinguished. 630-634. (d) Provisions Child Support Enforcement Act, moneys payable Government individual enforcement (42 659(a)), but specifically exclude establish congressional intent exempt such legal process. 659(a) create limited waiver sovereign immunity so issue valid orders directed against agencies attaching funds possession. Thus, although may attachment while hands, once they delivered can require used satisfy order. 634-635. Affirmed. MARSHALL, J., opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, POWELL, JJ., joined, Parts I, II-A, II-B, II-D, III STEVENS O'CONNOR, joined. filed concurring part judgment, STEVENS, post, p. ----. SCALIA, WHITE, dissenting opinion, 1 Jerry S. Jones, Johnson City, Tenn., appellant. 2 Roger Clegg, Washington, D.C., U.S., amicus curiae supporting appellant, special leave Court. 3 Howell H. Sherrod, Jr., appellee Barbara Rose. 4 W.J. Michael Cody, Nashville, 5 Justice MARSHALL 6 In case, we asked decide whether where 314 7 * Appellant Rose Vietnam war. He married 1973, couple two children marriage ended October 1983, decree Circuit Washington County, setting financial considered along identified statute "earning capacity, obligations needs, resources each parent." Tenn.Code Ann. 36-5-101(e)(3) (1984) (formerly 36-820 (1977)). Appellant's then, now, composed entirely Social Security Administrations. monthly:1 $1,211 benefits; $1,806 aid attendance $90 dependents' $281 benefits. $94 month children's insurance 8 ordered $800 per he appeal. From record appears initially $706 monthly, contending remaining satisfied Administration. However, appellee's first petition contempt, clarified 1984 addition Record 19. 9 following Appellee second seeking $710. responded assertion him contribute sums support. Invoking Clause, Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, sought ruling lacked these 36-820, pursuant null void. 28-29. 10 hearing, found willful acknowledged challenge constitutionality make action purposes, meantime comply then incarcerated until App. Juris. Statement 11a. Ten days later, released agreement between parties past due and, pending disposition appeals, $400 deposit into registry 39-40. 11 After becoming action, moved summary arguing constitutional thus properly asserted enforcing agreed. two-page order, upheld concluded validly exercised "jurisdiction Federal Disability Income Benefits." 14a. 12 Administrations payment provide. appellate invoked precedent general rule "state family law must major damage clear interest[s]," id., at 3a, citing McCarty McCarty, 453 210, 220, 101 2728, 2735, 69 589 (1981), else will demand overridden." 581, 808, (1979). It Court's 13 When Supreme denied application permission appeal, 22a, jurisdictional statement expressly abandoned receives month, 16, leaving claim monthly rests exclusively Administration.2 We noted probable jurisdiction,3 478 1003, 106 3292, 92 708 (1986), now affirm. II 14 correctly standard determining conflicts therefore Clause. consistently recognized "[t]he whole domestic relations husband wife, parent child, belongs laws States United States." re Burrus, 136 586, 593-594, 850, 852-853, 34 500 (1890); see supra, S.Ct., 808; 2735. "On rare occasion when come determination 'positively required direct enactment' pre-empted." quoting Wetmore Markoe, 196 68, 77, 25 172, 175, 49 390 (1904). Before governing overridden, "must 'major damage' 'clear substantial' interests." quotingUnited Yazell, 382 341, 352, 86 500, 506, 15 404 (1966). claims three provisions Code combination 42 651 et seq., with, evidence Congress' pre-empt, give consider turn. 16 First, relies (1982 ed., Supp. III), provision Administrator Affairs children. provides: "All custody apportioned prescribed Administrator." contends exclusive, eyes Tennessee, facilitate separate amounts previously set remedies. 17 cite meaning our search uncovered nothing dispositive nature. Nor Administrator's regulations decisive. See CFR §§ 3.450-3.461 (1986). Nowhere define instance. To contrary, joined curiae, concedes paid. carefully constructed argument continues, extends solely derived collect 3.452(a). deciding how much, any, should Reply Brief 2; Amicus Curiae 12, n. 13. 18 This framework finds little regulations. mentions role assigns restrictions seeks impose ability "may 3107(a)(2). broadly support." 3.450(a)(1)(ii) none there express indication possesses envisioned making hint effect. apportionment4 19 Apart inadequacies, suggests Administrator. divorced parents Tennessee's former established allocating divorce, conclude surely agree implicit pre-emption "positively enactment," "major damage" "clear substantial" interest created 808. B 20 vested Administrator, next cites "[D]ecisions question fact administered providing final conclusive decision. ." Ibid. 21 Though jurisdiction, Solicitor General argue underlying purposes nevertheless deemed controlling here. These Robison, 415 361, 370, 1160, 1167, 39 389 (1974), achieve protect expensive time-consuming litigation. 22 As already noted, however, find contrary courts. uniform focuses, instead, technical interpretations granting entitlements, particularly definitions degrees disabilities graduated benefit schedules. 12; Hearing H.R. 360 al. Subcommittee House Committee Affairs, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 1962-1963 (1952). issues especially well-suited administrative insulated judicial review. assuming covers proceeding brought reviewing decision finding eligible endangered. And burden created. There interests C 23 preempted "[p]ayments seizure equitable process whatever, either receipt beneficiary." sparse, recognizes purposes: "avoid possibility agency" "prevent subsistence dependent upon income." S.Rep. 94-1243, pp. 147-148 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, 5241, 5369, 5370. present case turn agency; deprive intent, provided alone. 24 compensate impaired earning H.R.Rep. 96-1155, (1980), 1980, 3307, "provide reasonable adequate families." 98-604, (emphasis added), 1984, 4479, 4488. Additional available 315, totaled But paucity 315 belies alone veterans. evidenced discussed, clearly used, part, dependents.5 On basis distinguish several prior containing prohibitions similar 3101(a) 424 (1950), rejected widow's community property one-half proceeds life policy husband, deceased Army officer, purchased during federally assisted program members military. Because creating gave insured right designate entire husband's mother directed. Otherwise, principles frustrated unequivocal who receive proceeds. Id., 658-659, 399-400. 26 contrast, coincide both dependents. reaching what alternative holding division constitute "seizure" violation "attachment, seizure," careful identify possible exception alimony cases. 659-660, 400. suggested deeply rooted moral responsibilities, concept akin amoral business relationship. 660, 27 announced were later applied involving retirement railroad employees. There, wife's annuity though entitlement accrued, large years. Congress, held, retired employee, beneficiary. 583, 809. protected statutory prohibition "garnishment, circumstances whatsoever." 576, 805, Railroad Retirement Act 1974, 88 Stat. 1345. precise specification drew divide objective, therefore, pre-empted. 585, 810. again discussed antigarnishment noncommunity cases.6 587, 811. 28 visited decree, keep force military members, event death wife death, remarried changed policy's designation go new wife. conflicted giving unqualified 56-57, 55-56. imposing constructive trust violate 770(g), identical all pertinent respects case. 60, 57. 29 Admittedly, proposed construction 770(g) barred claim, 60-61, 57-58; unable distinction divisions sustain statute's operation. 61-62, 11, 58-59, 11; 70, 61, 62 (POWELL, dissenting). critical difference demonstrated, veteran, well. Recognizing context further, undermine, Therefore, regardless merit imperative businesslike justifications division, extend invokes otherwise D 30 Finally, designed garnishment recipient failed declares: 31 "[M]oneys (the based remuneration employment) from, by, individual, including armed services, subject, like manner same extent private person, enforcement, III). 32 points definition "based employment," excludes "any 662(f)(2). exclusion, argues embodies aimed diverting sort 33 refer possession agencies: "The term 'legal process' writ, summons, nature issued [a court] compel, governmental entity, holds another 662(e) added). 35 581.102(f) (1986); 93-1356, 53-54 (1974). Waivers strictly construed, precluded individual's happens context, anyone than veteran. true hands persuaded cannot use them 36 fully appreciate physical sacrifice service country, acknowledge needs medical assistance recognize taken Benefits unequivocally hold, enacted 36-820. efforts transgress behind statutes. judgment 37 whom joins, judgment. I Mr. compelled discharge rest conclusion, ground disdains—the familial debts. apparently views insuperable obstacle acknowledging disagree: stare decisis concerns counsel overruling Ridgway's interpretation Servicemen's Group Life Insurance reason whatsoever equation debts absent clearest direction so. Read light Nation's common heritage, language incorporates, rather rejects, distinction. 40 anti-attachment says: 41 "Payments become assignable except authorized law, taxation, creditors, my view, bar "levy, seizure" "exempt[ion] creditors." plain creditors. family. explained dissent intended: 43 " '[T]o relieve person exempted pressure hostile essential well own personal ones, destroy family's last security, short public relief.' 76, 66, Schlaefer Schlaefer, 71 App.D.C. 350, 358, 112 F.2d 177, 185 (1940) (per Rutledge, J.). 61 44 Our Anglo-American tradition accords sanctity Unlike debts, example, spouse enforced threat obligations, moreover, discharged bankruptcy. 523(a)(5). Indeed, bankruptcy excepted discharge, inferred exception, explaining debts: 45 "We think reasoning [Audubon Shufeldt, 181 575, 735, 1009 (1901),] doctrine awarding both, debt put form father maintain owes duty because contractual imposes husband. interferes neglects refuses enforces proceedings. 46 47 continues before, devolved just sense." 74-76, 174-175, 48 Particularly relevant generally member's discussing very 74, 64, dissent: 'anti-attachment' [Servicemen's Act] comparable so-called 'spendthrift clauses' beneficiaries commercial creditors centuries. stated Dean Griswold, '[i]t widely trusts valid, reached wife.' E. Spendthrift Trusts (2d ed. 1947)." 73-77, 64-66 (STEVENS, 50 acknowledges, ante, ----, refused shield 400, (1950); 811, addition, predecessors, unenforceable. Mims Mims, 442 So.2d 102, 103-104 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Smolin First Fidelity Savings Loan Assn., 238 Md. 386, 392-394, 209 A.2d 546, 549-550 (1965); Dillard Dillard, 341 S.W.2d 668, 675 (Tex.Civ.App.1960); Voelkel Tohulka, 236 Ind. 588, 592-593, 141 N.E.2d 344, 346, cert. denied, 355 891, 78 263, 189 (1957); Pishue Pishue, Wash.2d 750, 754-756, 203 P.2d 1070, 1072-1073 (1949); Hannah Hannah, 191 Ga. 134, 137-139, S.E.2d 779, 781-782 (1940); Gaskins Security-First National Bank Los Angeles, Cal.App.2d 409, 417-418, 681, 684-685 (1939); Gardner, 220 Wis. 490, 493, 264 N.W. 643, 647 (1936); Stirgus Stirgus, 172 Miss. 337, 160 So. 285, 286 (1935); cf. 62, (citing cases). 51 short, always granted place While broad ordinary creditor's find, tradition, expresses anything necessary hopelessly anomalous, relegated status "a derelict waters law." Lambert California, 225, 232, 240, 245, 228 (1957) (Frankfurter, Accordingly, concur object squarely unique 52 53 cited bars basing awards parent's civil cannot, join much analysis, unnecessarily, view erroneously, actions us here permissible frustrate provisions. incompatibility invalidate text, know proposition, portions adopt, compatibility save violates text. Such effect asserts narrow texts, insofar concerned, precisely tailored perceives. 54 III) (1) apportionments; (2) face using denied; (3) purpose, presumption intrusion field Ante, conclusions quite 3107 entering reach enter entered State. Those questions us, ruling. 55 am answers correctly. ruling, conflicting extraordinary officer's allocation claimants overridden official. could, suppose, enact peculiar scheme, least done one direct, accordance previous use. 56 For related reasons, disagree "[d]ecisions decision." inapplicable explicitly federal; "achiev[ing] protect[ing] litigation," ibid., impaired. simpler reason. 57 Had arguably 211 "final conclusive"—and pre-empted, perception "purposes" 211. absolutely need pronounce Manual M21-1, ch. 26, ¶ 26.01 (Aug. 1979), ever filed, "decision" finality conclusiveness attach. 367-368, 1165-1166, (1974) (§ regarding unconstitutional issue). significant presented. 58 apply attachments, levies, seizures obligations—again "purpose" provision. reaches conclusion deducing, provision, "in dependents." 631. words enumerated processes ("attachment, whatever"), consulting exclude, textual justification, some (but all) mode analysis legitimate, me depriving favor purpose. Little proved statements Senate Reports capacity families, (1980) (1984); still effectuated majority situations (which needed explain statements) allowed. excerpts extremely weak proposition enforceable courts, which, O'CONNOR's concurrence notes, uneasily (1981). demonstrates, most, permit access says about garnish, attach, seize orders, reluctant them. Once again, reached. pain garnishment, directs requires Cf. 659, (1950) (order diversion soon constitutes proceeds). words, operate property. They prohibited accordingly run afoul add moving irrational one. thing prohibit routine compelling important State's imprisonment cases, Tenn. 18; Brown Brown, 156 619, 625-626, 345, 346-347 (1928), permitting imposed default. Tenn.Code. 36-5-104 (1984). 60 sum, respect four decided; resolves assumes limit text apparent purpose; assumption resolve incorrectly. With regard 659(a), contained Part II-D opinion. dissenting. 63 whatsoever, recognizes, albeit grudgingly, benefits.1 prohibits ignores creates out cloth, seeming meritorious 633—634. 64 inconsistent "attempted [the concerning benefits] theory minor asserting 57-58. "[t]his fails sweep statute." 58. attempts policies alone, statement, bill increasing [Veterans' Affairs] periodically reviews toward assuring families," 24, (1984), 4488, separated lacks plainly comment scope controlling, conjunction amendment supports undercuts demonstrates that, mechanism goal.2 65 Two confirm intend control. 1975 1977, amending notwithstanding garnished obligation, declined garnish pay, Also, passed Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Pub.L. 97-252, Tit. X (1982), permitted 1408, withheld 1408(a)(4). Of course, involve plausible written exceptions contemplated respectfully dissent. figures appear pleadings appeal taken. 28. presume equal time divorce. increased slightly proceeding. Joined lower divided Compare, e.g., Parker Parker, 335 Pa.Super. 348, 350-354, 484 168, 169-170 499-500, 646 416-418, (1939), Ex parte Burson, 615 192, 193 (Tex.1981). Construing (1977) (now codified 36-5-101 (1984)) below scheme 2. objection unconstitutional, 1257(2); 219-220, 2734-35, (1981); R. Stern, Gressman, Shapiro, Practice 112-113 (6th 1986). One regulation forbids "[w]here total apportionee." 3.458 defining reasonableness requested apportionment. By supplementing relies, 3.450, allows "specially apportioned" "where hardship shown exist." 3.451. "on facts long cause undue persons interest." "hardship" apportionment: "[a]mount Veterans payable; claimed; claimants." "[o]rdinarily percent less quantitative listed interpreted determinations. That rightfully expect derive further evident prohibiting legally adopted who, result adoption, 3.458(d) Consistent amended annuities, spousal divisions. 659 662. amendments "expressly override" claims, "logical thought justify deflected programs goals, need, so." 811; 230, 2740. Act's annuities characterized 231m(b)(2) (enacted 1983). response followed member not, consistent 1408(c)(1) (allowing treatment sole shared state] court"); 97-502, (1982). 631-632. stated: deficiency far [named beneficiary]. At respect, 'seized,' effect, below. flat exemption 454a, 816: Payments named 'shall .' "clearly holding," 631 632, detract holding. was, furthermore, holding: imagine began receiving difficulty SCALIA attaches significance pay. elevates substance: relied 7a-8a, jail. concern "to veterans," 628.

Classification Label: 9