Invitation Brief in No. 06-273, Cox v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
on May 18, 2007 at 4:04 pm
The SG’s invitation brief in No. 06-273, Cox v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., is in (it can be downloaded here), and – as in No. 05-10787, Murphy v. Oklahoma (which has been distributed for conference on May 31), the only other invitation brief filed recently – the federal government is recommending that cert. be denied.
As I noted in an earlier post, the question presented in Cox is whether ERISA’s anti-alienation provision prohibits the state of Michigan from directing a pension plan to deposit pension benefits owed to a state inmate into the inmate’s prison bank account, from which the state can then recover funds to pay for costs associated with the inmate’s incarceration. In contending that cert. is not warranted, the United States emphasizes first that the Sixth Circuit’s decision is correct: the notices sent by the state to DaimlerChrysler, directing the pension plan to send the pension benefits to the prison account, constitute precisely the kind of alienation of benefits that ERISA precludes. Moreover, the United States explains, the Sixth Circuit’s decision does not conflict with the decision of any other court of appeals. The government distinguishes a Ninth Circuit decision, Wright v. Riveland, as presenting a different factual scenario and statutory scheme; in that case, the inmates challenged California’s deduction of funds from their prison accounts after the funds had been deposited. And although the government acknowledges that the Sixth Circuit’s decision is “in significant tension” with a Michigan Supreme Court decision, the Sixth Circuit in this case explicitly declined to decide the question before the Michigan court – viz., whether Michigan could compel the inmate to notify the pension plan of his change in address. In any event, the United States explains, review is not warranted for the further reason that the Michigan Supreme Court could, based on the federal government’s views as expressed in this case, reconsider its holding if faced with the same question in the future. Finally, the government concludes, allowing the Sixth Circuit’s decision to stand does not necessarily preclude the state from recovering the costs of incarceration from inmates, as the state could still access the benefit payments once the inmate receives them.
