The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, December 3, 2002
Decision: Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Issues: Civil Rights, Juveniles

Advocates

Christine O. Gregoire (argued the cause for the petitioners)
Patricia A. Millett (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)
Teresa W. Roseborough (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The State of Washington, through its Department of Social and Health Services, provides foster care to certain children. It also receives and manages Social Security benefits, which it uses to cover its costs, for many of those children. Such beneficiary children filed suit, alleging that the Department's use of their benefits to reimburse itself for the foster care costs violated the "anti-attachment" provision of Title II of the Social Security Act, which protects certain benefits from "execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process." The trial court enjoined the Department from continuing to charge its foster care costs against Social Security benefits and ordered restitution of previous reimbursement transfers. The Washington Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the trial court's holding that the Department's practices violated the anti-attachment provision.

Question

Does the State of Washington's use of foster childrens' Social Security benefits to reimburse itself for some of its expenditures violate the provision of the Social Security Act that protects benefits from "execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process?"

Conclusion

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that the state's use of the Social Security benefits to reimburse itself does not violate the Social Security Act's anti-attachment provision. The Court reasoned that the Department's effort to become a representative payee and its use of Social Security benefits did not amount to employing an "execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process" within the meaning of the provision. The Court also noted that a ruing adverse to the state could disadvantage children in foster care.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for Washington Dept. of Social & Health Services, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote the majority opinion
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Full Opinion by Justice David H. Souter

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Washington Dept. of Social & Health Services v. Guardianship of Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371 (2003),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1420/>
(last visited ).