Legal Document

537 U.S. 371 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES ET AL.v.GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE KEFFELER AL. No. 01-1420. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 3, 2002. Decided February 25, 2003. Although Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) benefits under Title II the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 401 et seq., Supplemental Income (SSI) XVI, 1381 are generally paid directly to beneficiary, Administration may distribute them another individual or entity as beneficiary's "`representative payee,'" §§ 405(j)(1)(A), 1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I). Regulations provide, inter alia, that social service agencies custodial institutions serve representative payees, but follow a parent, legal guardian, relative in order preference for appointment position. E. g., 20 CFR 404.2021(b)(7), 416.621(b)(7). Such payee expend funds "only use benefit beneficiary," way determines "to be [beneficiary's] best interests." 404.2035(a), 416.635(a). Payments made "current maintenance" "for includes "cost[s] incurred obtaining food, shelter, clothing, medical care, personal comfort items," 404.2040(a), 416.640(a). A "may not required payments satisfy debt" arose before period certified cover, discharge such debt if reasonably foreseeable needs" met it is interest do so, 404.2040(d), 416.640(d). Washington State, through petitioner Department Health Services, provides foster care certain children removed from their parents' custody, also receives manages many those children. Pursuant its regulation requiring public child, including SSI OASDI benefits, used on behalf child help pay child's costs, department credits special account beneficiary debits providers. Respondents, who include children, filed this class action state court, alleging, among other things, department's reimburse itself costs violated 407(a) 1383(d)(1). Section 407(a), Act's "antiattachment" provision, protects "execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, process." 1383(d)(1) applies XVI. In granting respondents summary judgment, trial court enjoined continuing charge against ordered restitution previous reimbursement transfers, awarded attorney's fees. The State Appeals case Court, which ultimately affirmed court's holding practices antiattachment provisions. Held: State's respondents' does violate 407(a). Pp. 382-392. (a) Neither effort become payee, nor when acts capacity, amounts employing an process" Because activities involve any specified formal procedures, boils down whether "other statute uses term restrictively, established interpretative canons noscitur sociis ejusdem generis, where general words specific statutory enumeration, construed embrace only objects similar enumerated by words. E.g., Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 105, 114-115. Thus, should understood process much like processes execution, at minimum, would seem require utilization some judicial quasi-judicial mechanism, though necessarily elaborate one, control over property passes one person secure allegedly existing anticipated liability. This conclusion confirmed definition "legal Administration's Program Operations Manual System (POMS). On restrictive understanding, apparent Whereas object specifically named discharge, of, enforceable obligation, has no claim And while garnishment typically exercise sort authority gain another's property, scheme operates already possession control, held terms allow reimbursement. Additionally, although method accounting, there question were spent items within meaning regulations. That dealing with consistently regulations POMS. Government gone even further support reasonable interpretation, text aside, owing significant advantages providing accurate documentation allowing easy monitoring payees administering Security. Philpott Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 413, Bennett Arkansas, 485 395 (per curiam), distinguished. 382-389. (b) rejects view construction agency antithetical interests. Respondents' premise promoting interests requires maximizing resources left-over income ignores settled administrative law principle open-ended potentially vague highly susceptible interpretation subject deference. See Chevron A. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, 842-843. Under her authority, Commissioner read "interest" light basic objectives: provide minimum level otherwise have sufficient resources, see, e. Sullivan Zebley, 493 521, 524, workers families ordinary necessary living expenses, Califano Jobst, 434 47, 50. Commissioner, is, decided serves seeing needs met, trust fund attributable fortuitously overlapping federal grants. judgment obviously bounds, demonstrably character position If prevailed, lose altogether, since eligibility lost creep above minimal level, currently $2,000. 416.1205(c). addition, argument forgets last line payees. had way, offices might well resort, because States discouraged accepting acting capacity. With smaller total pool money potential use, chances having genuine beyond immediate shrink, children's loss. p. 389-391. 145 Wash. 2d 1, 32 P. 3d 267, reversed remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON. 2 Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General Washington, argued cause petitioners. briefs William Berggren Collins, Senior Assistant General, Walter Dellinger, Pamela Harris. 3 Patricia Millett amicus curiae urging reversal. Solicitor Olson, McCallum, Deputy Kneedler, Kanter, Jonathan H. Levy. 4 Teresa Wynn Roseborough respondents. brief Deborah M. Danzig, Richard B. Price, Rodney Reinbold.* 5 JUSTICE SOUTER 6 At own expense, involved, permitted Act here initial expenditures violates provision protecting 407(a); see We hold not. 7 * 8 comes two titles Act. II, 49 Stat. 622, amended, plan elderly disabled workers, survivors dependents. get if, say, minor unmarried was dependent wage earner entitled benefits. 402(d). XVI aged, blind, individuals, whose assets fall below levels (the latter being $2,000). 1381-1382; 416.1205(c) (2002). 9 pays directly, [a beneficiary's] benefit" payee.'" 1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I); 404.2001, 404.2010, 416.601, 416.610. rulemaking 405(a), (j)(2)(A)(ii), given priority considering appointment. 404.2021(b), 416.621(b). While entities come preference. 416.621(b)(7); 405(j)(3)(F), 1383(a)(2)(D)(ii). Whoever appointee be, must satisfied particular "in of" beneficiary. 405(j)(2)(A)(ii), 1383(a)(2)(B)(i)(II).1 10 Detailed govern payee's Generally, more deemed defining items." beneficiary" "if current met" so. Finally, left after maintenance authorized purposes, conserve invest 404.2045, 416.645. 11 accounting least annually, 405(j)(3)(A), 1383(a)(2)(C)(i), institutional liable triennial onsite reviews Commissioner's staff, Admin., Increased Monitoring Fee-for-Service Volume Representative Payees, Policy Instruction EM-00072 (June 2000). case, report time she "has reason believe" misusing funds, 405(j)(3)(D), 1383(a)(2)(C)(iv), criminal offense calls revocation appointment, 408(a)(5), 1383(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1383a(a)(4); 404.2050, 416.650. B 12 makes available abandoned, abused, neglected, orphaned guardians custodians able adequately. Rev. Code 13.34.030(5), 13.34.130(1)(b) without strings attached it, policy attempt recover parents [the] children," 6, 269 (2001) (citing 74.20A.010 (2001)), "moneys funds" offset "the amount assistance payable," 74.13.060. accordingly adopted OASDI, "shall cost received." Admin. 388-70-069(1) (2001), repealed St. Reg. 01-08-047 (Mar. 30, 2001).2 13 When Foster Care Trust Fund Account kept treasurer, subsidiary accounts each these debited, rarely direct purchase shelter. usual purchaser provider, then back according fixed compensation schedule. Every month, compares provider balance, draws itself. Since outlay customarily exceeds monthly usually leaves empty until next check arrives. 14 occasionally departs practice, discretion, extra ranging orthodontics, educational computers, athletic equipment holiday presents. 2d, 12, 3d, 272. been exceptional instances forgone expenses impending emancipation. App. Pet. Cert. A-57; 178. C 15 As September 1999, 10,578 1,500 receiving appointed almost all children,3 brought receive received whom served payee. 1995 they alleged, commonly called 16 "[t]he right future payment subchapter shall transferable assignable, equity, none moneys payable rights process, operation bankruptcy insolvency law." incorporates reference 17 Ruling cross-motions agreed It fees appealed Appeals, Washington. 18 After remanding factfinding, provisions.4 Relying part 413 (1973), (1988) reasoned intended protect claims creditors, consequently framed crucial question" "[w]hether [the department] creditor reimburses out [benefits]." 17, 275 (emphasis original). Its answer slightly qualified yes, "reimbursement ... involve[s] creditor-type acts," performed resort "`other process'" barred Id., 18, 22, 257, 277-278. 19 analysis gave deference regulations, omitted mention governing agency. Nor did think id., 278 (calling status "at immaterial analysis"). To contrary, capacity "further undercuts legality charged "`in beneficiary.'" 24, original) (quoting 404.2035(a)). "We seriously doubt using [Social Security] expenditure cases, some, `in 404.2035(a)).5 Three justices concurred dissented part. They majority "past due payments" provisions 27, 279 (opinion Bridge, J.) But provided first." Ibid. 21 staying Court's mandate, 535 923 (2002), we granted certiorari, 1094 now reverse. 22 approached generalizing concluding prohibits "creditor-type reading prohibited. flawed. 23 First, neither interpreting say anything about "creditors." Cf. Philpott, supra, 417 ("[Section] 407 refer `claim creditors'; imposes broad bar reach security benefits"). fact, owe deference, 842-843 (1984), permit creditors 405(j)(2)(C)(iii), 1383(a)(2)(B)(v), old debts so long will interest, apparently recognized (in qualifying characterization "creditor relationship" referring merely "creditor-type"), simply No repay claim. 24 questions answered resolving then, go creditor. questions, instead, 407(a).6 For obvious reasons, contend garnishment. These art procedures gains degree another, form authorization. See, Black's Law Dictionary 123 (7th ed. 1999) (defining "provisional attachment" "prejudgment attachment debtor's seized prevails, assured recovering . Ordinarily, hearing takes place"); 689 "garnishment" "[a] proceeding (or creditor) asks third party indebted bailee debtor turn property"). efforts arguably employ traditional procedures. 25 manner gaining involves process," term. restriction usage important here, abstract avenue reimbursement: appoints payee,7 treasurer. statute, however, far "`[w]here nature preceding words.'" 114-115 (2001); Gutierrez Ada, 528 250, 255 (2000) ("[W]ords known companions"); Jarecki G. D. Searle & Co., 367 303, 307 (1961) ("The maxim often wisely applied word capable meanings avoid giving unintended breadth Acts Congress"). 26 product guidance (POMS), publicly operating instructions processing claims, defines means official law) compels compliance demand; generally, order." POMS GN 02410.001 http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/aboutpoms (as visited Jan. 23, 2003) (available Clerk file). Elsewhere POMS, similarly "any writ, order, summons include, limited to, writ execution assignment issued [a] competent jurisdiction [or a]n pursuant local [a]nd directed governmental entity." 02410.200 added). interpretations products rulemaking, nevertheless warrant respect closing door suggestion rules short shrift sake breadth. Skidmore Swift 323 134, 139-140 (1944); Mead Corp., 533 218, 228, 234-235 (2001). 27 understanding nothing sort.8 28 previously quoted specify define There reimbursed maintenance," months spending practice consistent regulation's "costs incurred" food like. first 00602.030 debt," "a date payee").9 29 Brief Amicus Curiae 28-29.10 hard type delayed could maintenance, disburses lag. 02401.001 (noting dispensed month due). short, eminently sensible Auer Robbins, 519 452, 461 (1997).11 30 rested contrary conclusion, part, our decisions curiam). both involved actions sought attach maintenance. 415 ("Respondent sued bank account"); Bennett, 396 separate seeking plain language action, refused find implied exception 416; 397. Unlike present forms expressly prohibited 31 poor fit between points real basis objections practice. bottom, reflect child. (contending "is better off than [department] regardless reimbursement" original)); ("We beneficiary'" 404.2035(a))). true compel fact render self-reimbursing odds mandate "interest served" U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I).12 "best interests" Chevron, S., objectives Act: "minimum income" "have maintain standard Federal level," 416.110 (SSI); 524 (1990), "income expenses," 404.508(a) (OASDI); 50 (1977). 33 bounds reasonable, beneficiaries most threat, recipients 1382(a)(1)(B), (3)(B); Many altogether prevailed. Children's al. Amici 20; Counties California 16-18. suffer broader disadvantage. payees; else do. believe funding Fund, 21; Florida 7.13 identify eligible qualify, 20-24; Florida, 3-5; either obtain need very good luck them. position, sum, tend produce worse less spend. III 34 reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 35 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Robert Butterworth, Thomas Warner, Matthew J. Conigliaro, Attorneys respective jurisdictions follows: Pryor, Jr., Alabama, Bruce Botelho Alaska, Fiti Sunia American Samoa, Janet Napolitano Arizona, Bill Lockyer California, Ken Salazar Colorado, Jane Brady Delaware, Thurbert Baker Georgia, Earl I. Anzai Hawaii, James Ryan Illinois, Steve Carter Indiana, Miller Iowa, Carla Stovall Kansas, Ieyoub Louisiana, Steven Rowe Maine, Joseph Curran, Maryland, F. Reilly Massachusetts, Jennifer Granholm Michigan, Mike Moore Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon Missouri, Don Stenberg Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa Nevada, Philip T. McLaughlin New Hampshire, David Samson Jersey, Eliot Spitzer York, Betty Montgomery Ohio, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, Anabelle Rodriguez Puerto Rico, Sheldon Whitehouse Rhode Island, Charles Condon South Carolina, Mark Barnett Dakota, Paul Summers Tennessee, John Cornyn Texas, L. Shurtleff Utah, Sorrell Vermont, Jerry Kilgore Virginia, Iver Stridiron Virgin Islands, Darrell V. McGraw, West Doyle Wisconsin, Hoke MacMillan Wyoming; Lloyd Pellman, Ada Gardiner, Catherine Pratt, Alan K. Marks, Julie Surber; Michael Martinez Haga. amici affirmance AARP Rochelle Bobroff Schuster; Omar Azzam Douglas Grinnell, Donnie R. Cox, Dennis Atchley, Leehey. Marsha Levick Juvenile Center curiae. Prior making verify identity, connection lack relevant record prior misuse funds. 405(j)(2)(B), 1383(a)(2)(B)(ii); 404.2025, 416.625. preferred. 1383(a)(2)(B)(i)(II); 404.2020, 416.620 notify guardian intention appoint 405(j)(2)(E)(ii), 1383(a)(2)(B)(xii); 404.2030, 416.630. "Any dissatisfied designation Commissioner," review thereafter. 405(j)(2)(E)(i), 1383(a)(2)(B)(xi). April 2001, 388-70-069 replaced functionally provision. new "must exempted cover care." 388-25-0210 Of 1,480 1999 469 88 both, acted 1,411 holding, address arguments, contention, accepted alternative procedural failing notice "`intended result'" 15, 274 Memorandum Opinion, 96-2-00157-2 (Wash. Super. Ct., Okanogan Cty., Sept. 29, 1998), 8, A-130) consideration scope awarding Our jurisdiction, premised "[f]inal judgmen[t] decre[e]" 1257(a), unaffected disposition. SeePierce Guillen, ante, 142-143. Respondents never "transfe[r]" benefits; promise facts here. do, budgeting anticipation constitutes "assign[ment]" Congress hardly budgeting, done private alike, run afoul particularly 1-month Seeinfra, 387. extent ambiguous score, (1944). Quite apart consequence interpretive discussed succeeding text, mere taken contravene suggestion. noted, sections 405(j)(2)(C), (3)(B) (F), (4)(B), (vii)(II), (C)(ii), (D)(ii), section authorize suggest same forbids forbidden disregards "cardinal rule whole,"King Vincent's Hospital, 502 215, 221 (1991), implementing King Schafer, 940 1182, 1185 (CA8 1991) cannot contemplated result enacting 405(j), payees"), cert. denied sub nom. Crytes 1095 (1992); ("Section outlaw procedure regulations"). arguing rely 407(b), "[n]o limit, supersede, modify except express section." Given terms, apply, reliance misplaced rule, purposes. October 1996, amended 1383 issues retroactive lump sum six times amount, deposited into dedicated interest-bearing needs. 1383(a)(2)(F) Moreover, notes, "one formalism" could, indisputably, reduce amount. asAmicus 28. financial system department, yet practical lost. bears mentioning reasoning limits agencies. logic apply equally serving they, obligation irrespective See,e. result, likely impose onerous absurd requirements parents. Mellies Mellies, 249 Kan. 28, 33, 815 114, 117 (1991) (holding parent "had exhaust his finances [his child's] maintenance"); re Guardianship Nelson, 547 N. 108, 109 (Minn. Ct. 1996) (stating "not windfall" can survivor parent's ability meet needs"). issue argue 405(j) itself, by, example, discretion how periodically "sweeping" beneficiaries' past "double dipping" recouped sources. allegations, stand-alone arguments afield certiorari. constitutional complaint class-action certification related Accordingly, decline insofar relate proper free press responsibility overseeing elsewhere appropriate lesser percent $25 per expenses. 405(j)(4)(A)(i), 1383(a)(2)(D)(i). Nevertheless, SSI, spend considerably assist According screening applicants applying staff members $1.9 million annually. Application Recall Stay Mandate Pending Certiorari, 01A557, pp. 18-19. reason, said seek absent recoup costs. Seeibid.

Classification Label: 1