[1] Social Security benefits are not exempt but have specific limitations as set forth in 42 USC §407, which states: [N]one of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.

[8] In April 2002, the government notified Lockhart that a portion of his Social Security benefits would be withheld in order to collect on his delinquent debt.

[12] Respondents, represented by Lisa Blatt, argued that the text of Higher Education Technical Amendment in 1991 was unqualified and affected laws before and after its passage.

And there's just nothing in the Debt Collection Act that comes close to repealing the [Higher Education Technical Amendment], because it doesn't address the subject of student loans.

[12]In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the government can offset Social Security benefits to collect on loans delinquent for more than 10 years.

While Lockhart argued that the Higher Education Technical Amendment only applied to previous statutes, the Court, citing Union Bank v. Wolas, rejected that argument "The fact that Congress may not have foreseen all of the consequences of a statutory enactment is not a sufficient reason for refusing to give effect to its plain meaning.

Because of this, he argued that the Higher Education Technical Amendment and the Debt Collection Act of 1996 unambiguously contradict and thus repealed §407 and is effective even if the express-reference provision is not fulfilled.