United States v. Morton

Background

A Colonel in the Air Force stationed at Elmendorf, Alaska, had $4,100 withheld after the Elmendorf Finance Office received a certified writ of garnishment and an Alabama divorce judgment ordering alimony and child support. The Colonel protested, saying the Alabama court lacked authority over him, but the Finance Office paid the clerk anyway. Additional writs produced similar withholdings. The officer then sued the United States to recover the money, and lower courts ruled for him before the Government asked the Justices to review the case.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the United States can be held liable when it honors a garnishment that appears regular on its face but was issued by a court that lacked personal authority over the employee. Reading the statute as a whole, the Court concluded that the phrase "regular on its face" prevents a disbursing officer from probing personal authority; instead, the statute requires only that the issuing court have the power to enter that kind of order. The Court also relied on Congress’s statements and the implementing regulations, which explicitly say a government entity need not ascertain whether the issuing court had personal authority over the obligor. Because the regulations were authorized by Congress and reasonable, they control.

Real world impact

The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held the Government not liable when it honors a facially regular garnishment in accordance with the regulations. Federal agencies may therefore rely on the face of garnishment orders, speeding child support collection but making it harder for employees to recover withheld pay unless they pursue relief in the issuing forum.

Dissents or concurrances

The Court of Appeals had a dissenting judge who argued that only the state court’s subject-matter authority mattered and that notice to the disbursing officer should not change whether the court was competent to issue the writ.