This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Washington State Department of Social Services, the case concerns whether a state representative payee’s use of Social Security benefits to pay a beneficiary’s current maintenance violates the anti‑alienation provision of 42 U.S.C. § 407(a).
According to State, the Department of Social and Health Services argues that the anti‑alienation provision does not apply because the department is acting as a properly supervised representative payee.
Background and question before the Court
The case was subsequently submitted.
According to Washington State Department of Social Services, the question presented is whether a representative payee, appointed by the commissioner of Social Security, violates the anti‑alienation provision of 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) when it uses Social Security benefits to pay for the beneficiary’s current maintenance, and the Department says the answer is no.
What each side argues
Department of Social and Health Services (Petitioner)
According to Washington State Department of Social Services, the department is duly recognized as a representative payee subject to supervision, required to submit constant and annual reports, and is audited, acting in accordance with 405(j).
According to United States, the United States (amicus) states that the use of Social Security benefits to pay for current maintenance needs by a beneficiary or a parent as representative payee is permitted under the Social Security Act.
The State argues that § 407(a) does not apply to it because it is acting properly as a representative payee.
According to State of Washington, the State of Washington pays thousands of dollars for children with psychiatric needs, providing significant amounts of money rather than the minimum.
Guardianship Estate of Danny Keffeler (Respondent)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Stevens asked: “Can a set‑off ever be legal process?”
Justice Stevens asked whether the State has any set‑off rights that private entities do not, asking: “Suppose a private person were the representative payee. Do they have the same sort of set‑off rights for other debts as the State does?”
Justice Stevens further asked about § 407, noting that the attorney general indicated the State could set off a tax debt under that provision.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- f8fac1d1da73ac407013-r1-f00dbdec4b133a65.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.