What’s at Stake
Jurisdictions across the country force incarcerated people to pay for the supposed costs of their own incarceration under “pay to stay” laws. Michigan takes pension payments, intended to support those who can no longer secure any other income, to fund its prison system. This practice is wrong. Governments already cover the costs of their prisons and jails with taxes and other sources of revenue, and they should not be taking more money from people who are already serving their time and paying their fines. Most incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people live in poverty, and these policies only serve to exacerbate existing inequalities—and to incentivize unnecessary incarceration, by turning incarceration into a stable source of revenue.
Summary
Scott DeBruyn receives a pension of less than $400 a month for his twenty years of service in the auto industry. Michigan sued him in state court, seeking to force him to turn over 90 percent of that monthly payment for the duration of his incarceration. Mr. DeBruyn sued the state in federal court, seeking an injunction to stop the collection action under a federal law called ERISA that preempts state law and protects pensions from being “assigned or alienated.”
Core Legal Questions
Federal law protects pensions from debt collection and other property transfers. Some older precedents have held that ERISA only protects money that is still held by a pension administrator—not money that has been paid to a pensioner. But a recent Supreme Court case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, changed the way that courts read certain statutes. Under the correct reading of ERISA, Mr. DeBruyn’s pension cannot be taken from him at any point.