mackey
lanier
collection
agency
argued
april
decided
june
respondent
collection
agency
obtained
money
judgments
participants
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
covered
employee
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
request
garnish
debtors
plan
benefits
granted
georgia
trial
state
appeals
reversed
holding
code
ann
barring
garnishment
unds
benefits
employee
benefit
plan
program
subject
erisa
exempted
plan
benefits
garnishment
georgia
reversed
concluding
erisa
plan
therefore
subject
garnishment
general
state
garnishment
law
held
section
singles
erisa
employee
welfare
benefit
plans
different
treatment
welfare
plans
state
garnishment
procedures
erisa
supersedes
state
law
insofar
relate
plans
state
statute
express
reference
erisa
plans
brings
within
federal
law
reach
shaw
delta
air
lines
moreover
possibility
enacted
help
effectuate
erisa
underlying
purposes
enough
save
since
displaces
state
laws
fall
within
sphere
including
consistent
erisa
substantive
requirements
metropolitan
life
ins
massachusetts
pp
congress
intend
garnishment
erisa
welfare
benefit
plan
even
purpose
collect
judgments
plan
participants
pp
unlike
georgia
general
garnishment
statute
single
specially
mention
erisa
plans
kind
argument
general
statute
requires
plan
trustees
petitioners
respond
garnishment
orders
funds
otherwise
due
incur
substantial
administrative
burdens
costs
statute
consequently
relates
plan
within
meaning
refuted
certain
erisa
provisions
several
aspects
statute
structure
although
provides
plan
may
sue
sued
entity
specified
relief
clearly
contemplates
enforcement
money
judgments
plan
although
lawsuits
erisa
plans
contract
tort
claims
relatively
commonplace
erisa
provide
enforcement
mechanism
collecting
judgments
either
type
action
lieu
provision
collection
methods
including
garnishment
remain
undisturbed
erisa
see
fed
rule
civ
proc
section
language
support
petitioners
attempt
distinguish
permissible
garnishment
collect
plan
creditors
judgments
impermissible
garnishment
behalf
plan
participants
judgment
creditors
fact
ban
alienation
assignment
limited
pension
benefits
also
supports
conclusion
congress
intend
preclude
garnishment
welfare
plan
benefits
section
read
protect
benefits
plans
garnishment
since
demonstrates
congress
ability
distinguish
benefits
plans
wished
since
construction
render
substantially
redundant
therefore
superfluous
pp
petitioners
contention
retirement
equity
act
specified
provision
apply
qualified
domestic
relations
orders
establishes
originally
enacted
state
attachment
garnishment
procedures
theory
otherwise
amendment
save
orders
unnecessary
persuasive
equally
plausible
explanation
amendment
congress
meant
clarify
original
meaning
correcting
decisions
erroneously
construed
section
orders
even
petitioners
contention
correct
opinion
later
congress
meaning
law
enacted
years
earlier
control
issue
rather
erisa
language
structure
demonstrate
intent
congress
originally
enacted
state
garnishment
procedures
pp
white
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
brennan
marshall
stevens
joined
kennedy
filed
dissenting
opinion
blackmun
scalia
joined
post
ernest
mathews
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
thomas
gleason
charles
goldburg
kevin
marrinan
brian
martin
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
solicitor
general
fried
deputy
solicitor
general
ayer
christopher
wright
george
salem
allen
feldman
carol
de
deo
maureen
mahoney
invitation
argued
cause
filed
brief
amicus
curiae
support
judgment
benna
ruth
solomon
eric
amstutz
filed
brief
national
conference
state
legislatures
et
al
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
john
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
california
edmond
mamer
supervising
deputy
attorney
general
raymond
jue
deputy
attorney
general
filed
brief
state
california
amicus
curiae
justice
white
delivered
opinion
issue
whether
extent
georgia
statutes
bearing
garnishment
funds
due
participants
erisa
employee
welfare
benefit
plans
federal
statute
governs
plans
petitioners
trustees
employee
benefit
plan
provides
vacation
holiday
benefits
eligible
employees
several
southeastern
covered
workers
draw
vacation
benefits
plan
annually
plan
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
defined
employee
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
respondent
collection
agency
sought
obtained
money
judgments
plan
participants
owed
money
clients
respondent
collect
money
judgments
respondent
instituted
action
georgia
trial
seeking
garnish
debtors
plan
benefits
trial
granted
garnishment
request
app
pet
cert
georgia
appeals
reversed
holding
georgia
statute
code
ann
barring
garnishment
unds
benefits
employee
benefit
plan
program
subject
erisa
exempted
plan
benefits
garnishment
app
georgia
reversed
agreed
terms
barred
garnishment
action
concluded
section
erisa
since
purports
regulate
garnishment
erisa
funds
benefits
matter
specifically
provided
federal
scheme
analysis
erisa
provisions
georgia
concluded
congress
barred
garnishment
employee
welfare
benefits
even
though
employee
pension
benefits
protected
see
ed
supp
iv
since
prohibits
federal
statute
permits
georgia
held
state
law
conflict
federal
scheme
therefore
consequently
plan
subject
garnishment
general
state
garnishment
law
code
ann
et
seq
supp
conflicting
decisions
among
courts
questions
presented
granted
certiorari
affirm
georgia
judgment
ii
erisa
state
laws
insofar
may
hereafter
relate
employee
benefit
plan
covered
statute
believe
precedents
code
ann
state
law
georgia
statute
issue
expressly
refers
indeed
solely
applies
erisa
employee
benefit
plans
see
supra
law
relates
employee
benefit
plan
normal
sense
phrase
connection
reference
plan
shaw
delta
air
lines
emphasis
added
several
occasions
since
decision
shaw
reaffirmed
rule
concluding
state
laws
make
reference
erisa
plans
laws
relate
plans
within
meaning
see
pilot
life
ins
dedeaux
metropolitan
life
ins
massachusetts
fact
virtually
taken
granted
state
laws
specifically
designed
affect
employee
benefit
plans
cf
pilot
life
ins
dedeaux
supra
shaw
delta
air
lines
supra
possibility
enacted
georgia
legislature
help
effectuate
erisa
underlying
purposes
view
georgia
appeals
see
ga
enough
save
state
law
provision
displace
state
laws
fall
within
sphere
even
including
state
laws
consistent
erisa
substantive
requirements
metropolitan
life
ins
massachusetts
supra
decision
shaw
particularly
underscores
point
found
new
york
antidiscrimination
statute
even
though
congress
expressed
intent
erisa
approve
employment
practices
state
banned
statute
shaw
supra
legislative
good
intentions
save
state
law
within
broad
scope
consequently
adhering
precedents
area
hold
code
ann
singles
erisa
employee
welfare
benefit
plans
different
treatment
state
garnishment
procedures
state
statute
express
reference
erisa
plans
suffices
bring
within
federal
law
reach
iii
complex
question
posed
argument
petitioners
rejected
georgia
entire
georgia
garnishment
procedure
erisa
reserved
decision
issue
franchise
tax
board
california
construction
laborers
vacation
trust
southern
california
question
one
federal
law
close
one
believe
however
petitioners
contention
misapprehends
erisa
scope
unlike
georgia
antigarnishment
provision
discussed
georgia
general
garnishment
statute
single
specially
mention
erisa
plans
kind
recognized
force
limited
state
laws
see
pilot
life
ins
dedeaux
supra
shaw
delta
air
lines
supra
consequently
must
decide
whether
georgia
general
garnishment
law
relates
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
petitioners
direct
arguing
petitioners
assert
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
garnisheed
georgia
law
creditor
participant
plan
trustees
served
garnishment
summons
become
parties
suit
must
respond
deposit
demanded
funds
due
funds
otherwise
required
hold
pay
beneficiaries
least
petitioners
contend
benefit
plans
subjected
garnishment
incur
substantial
administrative
burdens
costs
garnishment
involve
affect
plan
trustees
ways
petitioners
submit
georgia
garnishment
law
necessarily
relates
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
therefore
unfortunately
erisa
offers
express
answer
whether
welfare
benefit
plan
trustees
must
comply
garnishment
orders
like
respondent
seeking
enforce
view
however
certain
erisa
provisions
several
aspects
statute
structure
indicate
congress
intend
forbid
use
mechanisms
executing
judgments
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
even
mechanisms
prevent
plan
participants
receiving
benefits
consequently
join
virtually
unanimous
view
federal
state
courts
faced
question
hold
federal
law
bar
garnishment
action
like
respondent
outset
consider
several
types
civil
suits
brought
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
first
erisa
provides
civil
enforcement
actions
may
brought
particular
persons
erisa
plans
secure
specified
relief
including
recovery
plan
benefits
suits
benefits
enforce
participant
rights
plan
may
brought
either
federal
state
section
provides
plan
may
sue
sued
entity
actions
clearly
contemplates
enforcement
money
judgments
benefit
plans
see
also
conf
erisa
plans
may
sued
second
type
civil
action
well
cases
lawsuits
erisa
plans
claims
unpaid
rent
failure
pay
creditors
even
torts
committed
erisa
plan
relatively
commonplace
petitioners
appearing
amicus
curiae
concede
suits
although
obviously
affecting
involving
erisa
plans
trustees
erisa
see
tr
oral
arg
erisa
provide
enforcement
mechanism
collecting
judgments
either
two
types
actions
thus
sue
sued
provision
contemplates
execution
judgments
plans
civil
actions
provide
mechanisms
moreover
federal
rule
civil
procedure
apply
either
type
civil
suit
discussed
brought
erisa
plan
federal
defers
state
law
provide
methods
collecting
judgments
cf
also
huron
holding
lincoln
mine
operating
consequently
methods
collecting
money
judgments
must
general
matter
remain
undisturbed
erisa
otherwise
way
enforce
judgment
erisa
plan
attachment
erisa
plan
funds
relate
erisa
plan
circumstances
see
respondent
proposed
garnishment
order
thus
clear
enough
money
judgments
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
based
state
federal
law
state
federal
must
collectible
way
garnishment
one
permissible
method
fact
petitioners
brief
argued
garnishment
erisa
plan
see
brief
petitioners
questioning
oral
argument
petitioners
conceded
garnishment
among
enforcement
mechanisms
may
used
certain
types
cases
involving
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
see
tr
oral
arg
nonetheless
petitioners
insist
erisa
bars
enforcement
particular
garnishment
orders
issue
rests
claim
view
prohibits
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
complying
enforcement
orders
like
garnishment
orders
affect
whether
benefits
paid
plan
participant
see
tr
oral
arg
view
enforcement
mechanisms
used
collect
judgments
plan
funds
general
creditors
plan
creditors
plan
participants
problem
proposed
interpretation
basis
whatsoever
language
statute
section
state
laws
insofar
relate
employee
benefit
plan
distinction
made
plan
funds
generally
funds
due
particular
participant
particular
time
amicus
curiae
appointed
put
simply
logical
way
construe
english
language
garnishment
attachment
laws
relate
benefit
plans
invoked
creditors
beneficiaries
invoked
beneficiaries
creditors
plan
brief
amicus
curiae
support
judgment
allows
creditor
plan
employ
procedures
attach
plan
funds
collect
judgment
plan
action
relate
benefit
plan
see
bars
participant
creditor
employing
mechanisms
congress
intended
erisa
preclude
particular
method
enforcement
judgments
extend
protection
particular
type
erisa
plan
expressly
statute
specifically
erisa
bars
certain
enumerated
exceptions
alienation
assignment
benefits
provided
erisa
pension
benefit
plans
congress
enact
similar
provision
applicable
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
one
issue
case
section
doubly
instructive
first
expressly
includes
distinction
us
read
section
bars
assignment
alienation
pension
plan
benefits
thus
prohibits
use
state
enforcement
mechanisms
insofar
prevent
benefits
paid
plan
participants
discussed
contrast
deals
state
laws
relate
plans
asks
us
read
protecting
benefits
plans
whole
attachment
orders
recognizing
numerous
problems
arise
conclude
welfare
benefit
plans
way
subjected
attachment
adopting
congress
demonstrated
wished
stay
operation
state
law
affects
benefits
plans
asks
us
imply
limitation
provision
one
portion
statute
congress
made
express
another
portion
erisa
see
basis
construing
statute
manner
therefore
light
reject
suggested
interpretation
section
also
supports
conclusion
another
way
give
erisa
meaning
petitioners
attribute
barring
garnishment
erisa
plan
benefits
render
substantially
redundant
concede
see
tr
oral
arg
cases
noted
past
hesitant
adopt
interpretation
congressional
enactment
renders
superfluous
another
portion
law
ultimately
examining
ignoring
fact
congress
adopting
erisa
provision
bar
alienation
garnishment
erisa
plan
benefits
chose
impose
limitation
respect
erisa
pension
benefit
plans
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
comprehensive
regulatory
scheme
like
erisa
omissions
significant
ones
cf
massachusetts
mutual
life
ins
russell
congress
sufficiently
aware
prospect
erisa
plan
benefits
attached
garnisheed
evidenced
adoption
congress
decision
remain
silent
concerning
attachment
garnishment
erisa
welfare
plan
benefits
acknowledged
accepted
practice
rather
prohibiting
alessi
therefore
conclude
congress
intend
preclude
attachment
erisa
welfare
plan
benefits
support
reading
relies
heavily
amendment
erisa
retirement
equity
act
pub
stat
act
included
several
changes
erisa
congress
felt
necessary
guarantee
nation
private
system
provided
fair
treatment
women
see
among
act
provisions
amendments
erisa
insured
statute
provisions
used
block
enforcement
qualified
domestic
relations
orders
generally
orders
providing
child
support
alimony
payments
erisa
plan
participants
see
supp
iv
supp
iv
primary
focus
portion
act
removing
protection
pension
plan
benefits
spouses
sought
enforcement
domestic
support
orders
congress
time
also
amended
provision
apparently
adopted
latter
amendments
response
lower
rulings
interpreted
bar
garnishment
purpose
enforcing
domestic
relations
orders
petitioners
argue
amendment
makes
clear
section
originally
enacted
generally
state
attachment
garnishment
procedures
otherwise
contend
necessity
amend
save
domestic
relation
orders
however
another
plausible
construction
congress
action
namely
congress
thought
courts
erroneously
construed
orders
view
amendment
served
purpose
correcting
error
thus
clarifying
original
meaning
section
cf
edward
debartolo
florida
gulf
coast
bldg
constr
trades
council
airlines
mcmann
marshall
dissenting
moreover
even
correct
congress
thought
originally
enacted
domestic
relations
orders
directed
erisa
plans
attachments
garnishments
well
opinion
later
congress
meaning
law
enacted
years
earlier
control
issue
airlines
mcmann
supra
views
subsequent
congress
form
hazardous
basis
inferring
intent
earlier
one
price
much
said
sentence
relevant
house
committee
report
relies
committee
reasserts
state
tax
levy
employee
welfare
benefit
plans
erisa
see
holding
circuit
franchise
tax
board
pt
supra
statement
suggest
house
committee
thought
foreclosed
attachment
orders
akin
issue
views
absent
amendment
original
language
section
direct
resolution
case
instead
must
look
language
erisa
structure
determine
intent
congress
originally
enacted
provision
question
intent
congress
enacted
section
controls
teamsters
inquiry
supports
reading
reading
given
every
considered
issue
context
save
ninth
circuit
decision
vacated
iv
accordingly
hold
erisa
forbid
garnishment
erisa
welfare
benefit
plan
even
purpose
collect
judgments
plan
participants
moreover
since
agree
georgia
georgia
antigarnishment
provision
found
code
ann
erisa
judgment
affirmed
footnotes
georgia
law
issue
provides
relevant
part
funds
benefits
pension
retirement
employee
benefit
plan
program
subject
provisions
federal
employee
retirement
income
security
act
amended
shall
subject
process
garnishment
unless
garnishment
based
upon
judgment
alimony
child
support
code
ann
respondent
elected
appear
appointed
amicus
curiae
defend
judgment
different
treatment
illustrated
express
reference
erisa
plans
language
also
disparate
treatment
accorded
benefit
plans
georgia
law
state
garnishment
statutes
pension
retirement
plans
exempted
garnishment
exemption
provided
employee
welfare
benefit
plans
compare
code
ann
supp
code
ann
consequently
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
protected
garnishment
georgia
law
plans
protected
litigants
argued
agreed
federal
law
controls
resolution
question
see
brief
petitioners
brief
amicus
curiae
filed
brief
amicus
curiae
support
judgment
far
aware
state
federal
decision
case
involving
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
adopt
view
attachments
welfare
benefit
plans
ninth
circuit
opinion
franchise
tax
board
california
construction
laborers
vacation
trust
southern
california
decision
subsequently
vacated
since
action
decisions
ninth
circuit
abandoned
position
taken
panel
majority
franchise
tax
board
adopted
interpretation
judge
tang
expressed
dissent
case
see
misic
building
service
employees
health
welfare
trust
arizona
laborers
teamsters
cement
masons
local
pension
trust
fund
nevarez
supp
courts
faced
question
context
likewise
concluded
erisa
application
state
garnishment
procedures
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
see
local
union
brotherhood
electrical
workers
vacation
trust
fund
local
brotherhood
electrical
workers
credit
union
per
curiam
supp
sd
ohio
first
nat
bank
commerce
latiker
la
app
electrical
workers
credit
union
holiday
trust
fund
mo
sue
sued
clause
found
erisa
provides
pertinent
part
civil
action
may
brought
participant
beneficiary
recover
benefits
due
terms
plan
employee
benefit
plan
may
sue
sued
subchapter
entity
money
judgment
subchapter
employee
benefit
plan
shall
enforceable
plan
entity
see
morris
local
delivery
warehouse
employees
health
welfare
fund
misc
city
civ
suit
erisa
plan
unpaid
rent
luxemburg
hotel
restaurant
employees
bartenders
union
pension
fund
misc
new
york
cty
suit
erisa
plan
unpaid
attorneys
fees
abofreka
alston
tobacco
tort
suit
erisa
plan
conclusion
supported
interpretation
adopted
sue
sued
clauses
previous
cases
involving
statutes
congress
provides
law
entity
may
sue
sued
includes
civil
process
es
incident
legal
proceedings
including
arnishment
attachment
fha
burr
reaffirmed
view
sue
sued
clause
creates
presumption
susceptibility
garnishment
attachment
recent
cases
well
see
franchise
tax
board
california
usps
even
petitioners
concede
usual
rule
sue
sued
clause
makes
subject
entity
susceptible
garnishment
see
tr
oral
arg
following
concession
petitioners
later
suggested
somewhat
contradictory
argument
garnishment
state
procedural
device
collecting
judgments
obtained
substantive
body
law
rather
substantive
law
creates
rights
liabilities
none
existed
see
note
however
georgia
law
least
garnishment
procedural
mechanism
enforcement
judgments
georgia
statute
provides
garnishment
creates
substantive
causes
action
new
bases
relief
grounds
recovery
georgia
garnishment
law
create
rule
decision
case
affixing
liability
rather
georgia
law
postjudgment
garnishment
nothing
method
collect
judgments
otherwise
obtained
prevailing
claim
garnishee
see
code
ann
analysis
reinforced
fact
georgia
statute
garnishor
obtain
writ
garnishment
purpose
executing
judgments
either
state
federal
courts
sitting
georgia
georgia
description
postgarnishment
actions
procedural
see
antico
antico
easterwood
leblanc
usual
understanding
garnishment
example
garnishment
federal
system
available
federal
rule
provides
rocess
enforce
judgment
see
fed
rule
civ
proc
emphasis
added
see
also
moore
lucas
sinclair
moore
federal
practice
see
massachusetts
mutual
life
ins
russell
fec
national
conservative
political
action
committee
park
fly
dollar
park
fly
generix
drug
dickerson
new
banner
institute
incongruous
find
code
ann
supp
provides
garnishment
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
escapes
erisa
striking
exception
general
provision
believe
garnishment
procedures
also
conclude
state
law
singles
erisa
plans
express
reference
special
treatment
see
part
ii
supra
singling
georgia
antigarnishment
exception
courts
divided
question
whether
erisa
clause
applies
state
domestic
relations
orders
also
question
whether
clause
refers
state
domestic
relations
laws
orders
pt
reason
think
dissent
suggestion
reading
renders
provision
redundant
unsound
post
section
enacted
decade
adopted
response
lower
interpretations
congress
liking
consequently
even
given
interpretation
adopt
today
overlaps
decision
suffer
evil
rendering
duplicative
two
statutory
provisions
simultaneously
adopted
congress
unfortunately
said
dissent
reading
render
redundant
two
provisions
erisa
enacted
time
sort
redundancy
suggestion
congress
intentionally
adopted
single
time
two
separate
provisions
meaning
calls
particular
statutory
interpretation
question
see
supra
even
dissent
concedes
problem
plagues
reading
post
see
also
jefferson
county
pharmaceutical
assn
abbott
laboratories
consumer
product
safety
gte
sylvania
oscar
mayer
evans
dissent
claims
ignoring
positive
expression
legislative
forecloses
interpretation
post
whatever
else
one
say
relevance
case
one
say
statutory
provision
amounts
congressional
enactment
controls
section
direct
bearing
case
involves
type
garnishment
order
issue
one
glean
sense
congress
understood
scope
sense
command
obedience
moreover
reasons
discuss
even
think
clear
congress
actually
read
way
dissent
insists
justice
kennedy
justice
blackmun
justice
justice
scalia
join
dissenting
enacted
erisa
congress
expressly
state
laws
insofar
may
hereafter
relate
employee
benefit
plan
broadly
defined
state
law
include
laws
decisions
rules
regulations
state
action
effect
law
erisa
holds
provisions
georgia
statute
code
ann
specifically
exempting
erisa
plans
state
garnishment
laws
much
agree
also
holds
however
erisa
provision
prohibit
garnishment
funds
due
participants
erisa
welfare
benefit
plans
believe
latter
conclusion
inconsistent
statute
precedents
respect
dissent
said
repeated
emphasis
reach
limited
state
laws
specifically
designed
affect
employee
benefit
plans
see
pilot
life
ins
dedeaux
shaw
delta
airlines
reach
limited
state
laws
conflict
substantive
provisions
erisa
see
metropolitan
life
ins
massachusetts
contrary
phrase
relate
must
given
broad
meaning
state
law
relate
benefit
plan
normal
sense
phrase
connection
reference
plan
pilot
life
insurance
dedeaux
supra
quoting
metropolitan
life
supra
turn
quoting
shaw
supra
view
state
garnishment
laws
necessarily
relate
employee
benefit
plans
extent
require
plans
act
garnishees
substantial
onerous
obligation
compliance
state
garnishment
procedures
subjects
plan
significant
administrative
burdens
costs
petitioners
required
confirm
identity
plan
participants
owe
money
respondent
calculate
participant
maximum
entitlement
fund
period
service
date
reply
date
summons
garnishment
determine
amount
participant
owes
respondent
make
payments
state
lesser
amount
owed
respondent
participant
entitlement
petitioners
must
also
make
decisions
concerning
validity
priority
garnishments
necessary
bear
costs
litigating
issues
trustees
multiemployer
plan
covering
participants
several
petitioners
potentially
subject
multiple
garnishment
orders
varying
conflicting
state
laws
apparent
effects
garnishment
laws
employee
benefit
plans
tenuous
remote
peripheral
laws
accordingly
see
shaw
delta
airlines
supra
reading
language
confirmed
congress
decision
exempt
certain
domestic
relations
orders
reach
erisa
see
supp
iv
majority
acknowledges
provision
intended
save
certain
garnishments
designed
enforce
domestic
relations
obligations
see
ante
majority
disregards
however
strong
structural
implication
created
limited
scope
exception
surely
congress
knew
similar
questions
concerning
validity
garnishment
procedures
arise
contexts
indeed
majority
recognizes
much
see
ante
citing
pt
yet
congress
decided
save
limited
class
garnishment
orders
upon
specifically
prescribed
conditions
see
supp
iv
defining
qualified
domestic
relations
order
majority
conclusion
erisa
bar
garnishment
welfare
plan
benefits
renders
nugatory
carefully
calibrated
legislative
choice
answer
say
majority
views
subsequent
congress
form
hazardous
basis
inferring
intent
earlier
one
ante
quoting
price
views
majority
rejects
postenactment
musings
member
congress
congressional
committee
positive
expression
legislative
bound
give
effect
enacting
congress
dispelled
possible
doubt
concerning
circumstances
welfare
benefit
plans
required
comply
state
orders
providing
garnishment
plan
benefits
infrequently
calls
upon
congress
manifest
intent
clearly
today
disregards
clear
answer
given
congress
valid
enactment
ii
reaching
conclusion
georgia
garnishment
statutes
circumstances
case
relies
two
principal
arguments
first
notes
congress
contemplated
erisa
benefit
plans
subject
suit
certain
circumstances
majority
notes
correctly
civil
enforcement
actions
maintainable
pursuant
majority
points
certain
suits
may
brought
erisa
plans
claims
ante
reasons
erisa
provide
enforcement
mechanism
collecting
judgments
suits
congress
must
intended
methods
collection
remain
undisturbed
argument
relevance
issue
us
question
face
whether
garnishment
may
used
enforce
valid
judgment
obtained
erisa
plan
garnishment
used
process
issues
third
party
owes
plan
debt
property
possession
plan
interest
significant
burdens
complying
garnishment
order
fall
plan
debtor
plan
issue
face
case
quite
different
whether
erisa
benefit
plan
may
forced
act
garnishee
creditors
plan
participants
beneficiaries
fails
analyze
different
contexts
state
garnishment
laws
may
affect
erisa
plans
conclusion
laws
never
far
broad
conclusion
may
valid
garnishment
proceedings
erisa
plan
debtor
plainly
unwarranted
situations
plan
garnishee
latter
situation
plans
face
repetitious
costly
burden
monitoring
controversies
involving
hundreds
beneficiaries
participants
various
assumes
point
issue
say
conclusion
required
cases
holding
clause
creates
presumption
susceptibility
garnishment
procedures
enforcing
judgments
see
ante
citing
franchise
tax
board
california
usps
fha
burr
clause
cases
waiver
sovereign
immunity
otherwise
protected
certain
federal
agencies
legal
process
including
writs
garnishment
context
perfectly
sensible
presum
congress
launched
governmental
agency
commercial
world
endowed
authority
sue
sued
agency
less
amenable
judicial
process
private
enterprise
like
circumstances
fha
burr
supra
erisa
context
contrast
substantively
limits
ability
treat
employee
benefit
plans
may
treat
commercial
enterprise
cases
finding
several
causes
action
establish
least
much
see
pilot
life
holding
certain
contract
tort
laws
though
otherwise
generally
applicable
may
invoked
employee
benefit
plan
shaw
finding
certain
fair
employment
laws
second
argument
relies
conclusion
state
statutes
issue
case
render
redundant
bar
alienation
assignment
pension
benefits
set
forth
erisa
see
ante
provision
prohibits
assignment
whether
voluntary
involuntary
pension
plan
assets
view
rejects
prohibit
involuntary
assignments
pension
welfare
plan
assets
assignments
necessarily
effected
application
state
laws
like
georgia
laws
issue
case
agree
ordinarily
partial
redundancy
statutory
command
result
interpretation
rejects
lightly
inferred
nevertheless
believe
two
reasons
consideration
weighty
present
context
first
alternative
construction
adopted
results
total
redundancy
supp
iv
preferable
view
tolerate
partial
overlap
rejected
construe
render
another
section
statute
surplus
entirety
second
deliberate
expansive
reach
necessarily
encompasses
many
state
laws
even
absence
broad
mandate
solely
basis
conflict
erisa
substantive
requirements
degree
overlap
necessary
concomitant
approach
chosen
congress
partial
redundancy
strives
avoid
essentially
analogous
host
like
overlaps
congress
must
foreseen
suggest
type
overlap
sufficient
call
question
applicability
defeat
purpose
enacted
agree
conclusion
petitioners
must
comply
garnishment
orders
issue
case