Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board
34 L. Ed. 2d 608, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 161, 409 U.S. 413 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 407 of the Social Security Act imposes a broad bar against the use of any legal process by creditors, including a state, to reach Social Security benefits, even when those benefits have been deposited into a bank account and are sought as reimbursement for public assistance.
Facts:
- In 1966, Wilkes, a person with a permanent and total disability, applied for financial assistance from the Essex County Welfare Board in New Jersey.
- As a condition of receiving aid, Wilkes signed a statutorily required agreement to reimburse the welfare board for all assistance payments he received.
- The welfare board determined Wilkes's monthly need to be $108 and began making payments to him.
- At the board's suggestion, Wilkes applied for federal disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act.
- In 1968, Wilkes was awarded a retroactive lump-sum disability payment of $1,864.20 from the Social Security Administration, covering the period from May 1966 to the summer of 1968.
- This retroactive payment was deposited into a bank account held in trust for Wilkes by Philpott.
- The Essex County Welfare Board then sought to recover the funds from this bank account to reimburse itself for the state assistance it had provided to Wilkes.
Procedural Posture:
- The Essex County Welfare Board sued Philpott and Wilkes in a New Jersey trial court to reach the funds in the bank account.
- The trial court ruled in favor of Wilkes, holding that the Social Security Act barred recovery.
- The Board (appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Board (appellant) then appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the lower courts' decisions, ruling in favor of the Welfare Board.
- Wilkes and Philpott (petitioners) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 407 of the Social Security Act, which protects benefits from 'execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process,' prevent a state from seizing a recipient's retroactive Social Security disability benefits to reimburse itself for welfare payments previously made to that recipient?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. Section 407 of the Social Security Act prevents a state from seizing a recipient's federal disability benefits to obtain reimbursement. The court reasoned that the language of § 407 is all-inclusive, stating that 'none of the moneys paid or payable' under the act 'shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.' The state's lawsuit to recover the funds constituted such 'other legal process.' The Court found no reason to place a state in a 'preferred position as compared with any other creditor.' Citing Porter v. Aetna Casualty Co., the court held that the funds, having been deposited in a bank account, retained their 'quality of moneys' and had not become a permanent investment, thus remaining under the protection of § 407. The statute's broad bar against legal process applies to all claimants, including a state, and by reason of the Supremacy Clause, this federal law preempts New Jersey's reimbursement scheme.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the supremacy and broad scope of the Social Security Act's anti-attachment provision (§ 407). It clarifies that the protection extends not only against private creditors but also against government entities seeking reimbursement for public assistance. The ruling prevents states from circumventing federal protections by conditioning welfare benefits on reimbursement agreements that target Social Security income. The case solidifies the principle that these federal funds are intended for the maintenance of the recipient and are insulated from legal seizure, thereby protecting the economic security of beneficiaries.
