Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/353

 546US1

142

Unit: $U13

[08-22-08 15:36:16] PAGES PGT: OPIN

OCTOBER TERM, 2005 Syllabus

LOCKHART v. UNITED STATES et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04–881. Argued November 2, 2005—Decided December 7, 2005 In 2002, the Government began withholding a portion of petitioner’s Social Security payments to offset his debt on federally reinsured student loans that were more than 10 years overdue. Petitioner sued, arguing that the offset was barred by the 10-year statute of limitations of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, 31 U. S. C. § 3716(e)(1). The Social Security Act generally exempts beneﬁts from attachment or other legal process, 42 U. S. C. § 407(a), and provides that “[n]o other provision of law. . . may be construed to. . . modify. . . this section except to the extent that it does so by express reference,” § 407(b). The Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991 eliminated time limitations on suits to collect student loans, 20 U. S. C. § 1091a(a)(2)(D). In 1996, the Debt Col­ lection Improvement Act subjected Social Security beneﬁts to offset, “[n]otwithstanding [§ 407],” 31 U. S. C. § 3716(c)(3)(A)(i). The District Court dismissed petitioner’s complaint, and the Ninth Circuit afﬁrmed. Held: The United States may offset Social Security beneﬁts to collect a student loan debt that has been outstanding for over 10 years. Pp. 145–147. (a) The Debt Collection Improvement Act makes Social Security ben­ eﬁts subject to offset, providing the sort of express reference that § 407(b) says is necessary to supersede the anti-attachment provision. P. 145. (b) The Higher Education Technical Amendments remove the 10-year limit that would otherwise bar offsetting petitioner’s Social Security beneﬁts to pay off his student loan debt. Debt collection by Social Se­ curity offset was not authorized until ﬁve years after this abrogation of time limits, but the plain meaning of the Higher Education Technical Amendments must be given effect even though Congress may not have foreseen all of their consequences, Union Bank v. Wolas, 502 U. S. 151, 158. Though the Higher Education Technical Amendments, unlike the Debt Collection Improvement Act, do not explicitly mention § 407, an express reference is only required to authorize attachment in the ﬁrst place. Pp. 145–146. (c) Though the Debt Collection Improvement Act retained the Debt Collection Act’s general 10-year bar on offset authority, the Higher Edu­ cation Technical Amendments retain their effect as a limited exception