U.S. Code » Title 31 » Subtitle SUBTITLE III— FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT › Chapter CHAPTER 37— CLAIMS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

31 U.S.C. § 3720D

Garnishment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of State law, the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency that administers a program that gives rise to a delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States by an individual may in accordance with this section garnish the disposable pay of the individual to collect the amount owed, if the individual is not currently making required repayment in accordance with any agreement between the agency head and the individual.(b) In carrying out any garnishment of disposable pay of an individual under subsection (a), the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency shall comply with the following requirements:(1) The amount deducted under this section for any pay period may not exceed 15 percent of disposable pay, except that a greater percentage may be deducted with the written consent of the individual.(2) The individual shall be provided written notice, sent by mail to the individual’s last known address, a minimum of 30 days prior to the initiation of proceedings, from the head of the executive, judicial, or legislative agency, informing the individual of—(A) the nature and amount of the debt to be collected;(B) the intention of the agency to initiate proceedings to collect the debt through deductions from pay; and(C) an explanation of the rights of the individual under this section.(3) The individual shall be provided an opportunity to inspect and copy records relating to the debt.(4) The individual shall be provided an opportunity to enter into a written agreement with the executive, judicial, or legislative agency, under terms agreeable to the head of the agency, to establish a schedule for repayment of the debt.(5) The individual shall be provided an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with subsection (c) on the determination of the head of the executive, judicial, or legislative agency concerning—(A) the existence or the amount of the debt, and(B) in the case of an individual whose repayment schedule is established other than by a written agreement pursuant to paragraph (4), the terms of the repayment schedule.(6) If the individual has been reemployed within 12 months after having been involuntarily separated from employment, no amount may be deducted from the disposable pay of the individual until the individual has been reemployed continuously for at least 12 months.(c)(1) A hearing under subsection (b)(5) shall be provided prior to issuance of a garnishment order if the individual, on or before the 15th day following the mailing of the notice described in subsection (b)(2), and in accordance with such procedures as the head of the executive, judicial, or legislative agency may prescribe, files a petition requesting such a hearing.(2) If the individual does not file a petition requesting a hearing prior to such date, the head of the agency shall provide the individual a hearing under subsection (a)(5) 11 So in original. Probably should be subsection “(b)(5)”. upon request, but such hearing need not be provided prior to issuance of a garnishment order.(3) The hearing official shall issue a final decision at the earliest practicable date, but not later than 60 days after the filing of the petition requesting the hearing.(d) The notice to the employer of the withholding order shall contain only such information as may be necessary for the employer to comply with the withholding order.(e)(1) An employer may not discharge from employment, refuse to employ, or take disciplinary action against an individual subject to wage withholding in accordance with this section by reason of the fact that the individual’s wages have been subject to garnishment under this section, and such individual may sue in a State or Federal court of competent jurisdiction any employer who takes such action.(2) The court shall award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing employee and, in its discretion, may order reinstatement of the individual, award punitive damages and back pay to the employee, or order such other remedy as may be reasonably necessary.(f)(1) The employer of an individual—(A) shall pay to the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency as directed in a withholding order issued in an action under this section with respect to the individual, and(B) shall be liable for any amount that the employer fails to withhold from wages due an employee following receipt by such employer of notice of the withholding order, plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and, in the court’s discretion, punitive damages.(2)(A) The head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency may sue an employer in a State or Federal court of competent jurisdiction to recover amounts for which the employer is liable under paragraph (1)(B).(B) A suit under this paragraph may not be filed before the termination of the collection action, unless earlier filing is necessary to avoid expiration of any applicable statute of limitations period.(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), an employer shall not be required to vary its normal pay and disbursement cycles in order to comply with this subsection.(g) For the purpose of this section, the term “disposable pay” means that part of the compensation of any individual from an employer remaining after the deduction of any amounts required by any other law to be withheld.(h) The Secretary of the Treasury shall issue regulations to implement this section.(Added Pub. L. 104–134, title III, § 31001(o)(1), Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321–369.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Wagstaff v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 99 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wagstaff v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 99 (Fed. Cl. 2012). · cites it 4× “See 31 U.S.C. § 3720D. Sections 3720A and 3720D necessarily imply a monetary remedy if the Government perpetrates an illegal exaction pursuant to their authority.”
Wagstaff v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 754 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 4× “§ 3720A (2006) (authorizing tax refund offsets against taxpayers who owe debts to federal agencies); 31 U.S.C. § 3720D (2006) (authorizing wage garnishments against persons who owe debts to federal agencies); Fed.”
Commonwealth v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 340 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “31 U.S.C. § 3720D(a). A borrower may raise the conduct of a school as a defense in response to such wage garnishments, tax refund seizures, and other offsets.”
Wagstaff v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 172 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “See generally 31 U.S.C. § 3720D (authorizing administrative wage garnishment).”
Woody v. United States Dep't of Just. (In Re Woody), 335 B.R. 431 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2005). “§ 1095a; the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. § 3720D. 16 . See 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (a); K.”
Pine v. Dep't of Educ. (E.D. Pa. 2020). · cites it 6× “12 The December 4, 2019 wage garnishment order identifies Reliant Capital as the “Creditor Agency” with the Department of Education’s address for administrative wage garnishments in St. Louis, Missouri.13 The total amount due is $67,918.”
Williams v. Drakaina Logistics (E.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 3× “Claim Under 31 U.S.C. § 3720D 21 Lastly, Plaintiff alleges a violation of 31 U.”
Bender v. Van Ru Credit Corp. (In re Bender), 338 B.R. 62 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2006). · cites it 5× “3 This “15% of disposable pay” calculation appears to be based on the standards for the amount the Department would be able to obtain under a non-judicial wage garnishment permitted under 31 U.S.C. § 3720D and 34 C.F.R. Part 34. In other words, borrowers can avoid garnishment of…”
Horton v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). · cites it 2× “The Department of the Treasury followed the procedures outlined in 31 U.S.C. § 3720D and 31 C.F.R. § 285.11 by explaining the nature and amount of the debt and giving him 30 days to contact the servicer, pay the debt, or contest its validity.”
Williams v. Vista (E.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 3331 , 31 U.S.C. § 3720D, 42 U.S.C. § 13 1983, as well as bringing claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.”
Williams v. Vista (E.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 2× “448 , 31 U.S.C. § 3720D, 42 U.S.C. § 1994 , 28 U.”
(PS) Davis v. El Hogar Mental Health & Comm Servs. (E.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 2× “31 U.S.C. § 3720D(b). Section 6503(a) applies to actions for a breach or 15 violation of a representation or stipulation included in a contract under Section 6502 of this title.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— 31 U.S.C. § 3720D(B)(1) — 1 case
Horton v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “The Department of the Treasury followed the procedures outlined in 31 U.S.C. § 3720D and 31 C.F.R. § 285.11 by explaining the nature and amount of the debt and giving him 30 days to contact the servicer, pay the debt, or contest its validity.”
— 31 U.S.C. § 3720D(a) — 8 cases
Wagstaff v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 99 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “See 31 U.S.C. § 3720D. Sections 3720A and 3720D necessarily imply a monetary remedy if the Government perpetrates an illegal exaction pursuant to their authority.”
Commonwealth v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 340 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “31 U.S.C. § 3720D(a). A borrower may raise the conduct of a school as a defense in response to such wage garnishments, tax refund seizures, and other offsets.”
Wagstaff v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 754 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “§ 3720A (2006) (authorizing tax refund offsets against taxpayers who owe debts to federal agencies); 31 U.S.C. § 3720D (2006) (authorizing wage garnishments against persons who owe debts to federal agencies); Fed.”
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Dep't of Educ. (D.D.C. 2018).
United States v. Susan Pioch (6th Cir. 2021).
— 31 U.S.C. § 3720D(b) — 2 cases
(PS) Davis v. El Hogar Mental Health & Comm Servs. (E.D. Cal. 2023). “31 U.S.C. § 3720D(b). Section 6503(a) applies to actions for a breach or 15 violation of a representation or stipulation included in a contract under Section 6502 of this title.”
(PS) Davis v. El Hogar Mental Health & Comm Servs. (E.D. Cal. 2023).
— 31 U.S.C. § 3720D(b)(1) — 3 cases
(PS) Davis v. El Hogar Mental Health & Comm Servs. (E.D. Cal. 2023). “31 U.S.C. § 3720D(b). Section 6503(a) applies to actions for a breach or 15 violation of a representation or stipulation included in a contract under Section 6502 of this title.”
(PS) Davis v. El Hogar Mental Health & Comm Servs. (E.D. Cal. 2023).
Shailesh Patel & Meena Patel (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2022).
— 31 U.S.C. § 3720D(b)(2) — 3 cases
Horton v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Pine v. Dep't of Educ. (E.D. Pa. 2020). “12 The December 4, 2019 wage garnishment order identifies Reliant Capital as the “Creditor Agency” with the Department of Education’s address for administrative wage garnishments in St. Louis, Missouri.13 The total amount due is $67,918.”
Jeffrey March, II v. DOD (3rd Cir. 2025).
— 31 U.S.C. § 3720D(b)(4) — 1 case
Bender v. Van Ru Credit Corp. (In re Bender), 338 B.R. 62 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2006). “3 This “15% of disposable pay” calculation appears to be based on the standards for the amount the Department would be able to obtain under a non-judicial wage garnishment permitted under 31 U.S.C. § 3720D and 34 C.F.R. Part 34. In other words, borrowers can avoid garnishment of…”
— 31 U.S.C. § 3720D(b)(5) — 1 case
Pine v. Dep't of Educ. (E.D. Pa. 2020). “12 The December 4, 2019 wage garnishment order identifies Reliant Capital as the “Creditor Agency” with the Department of Education’s address for administrative wage garnishments in St. Louis, Missouri.13 The total amount due is $67,918.”
— 31 U.S.C. § 3720D(g) — 1 case
Bender v. Van Ru Credit Corp. (In re Bender), 338 B.R. 62 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2006). “3 This “15% of disposable pay” calculation appears to be based on the standards for the amount the Department would be able to obtain under a non-judicial wage garnishment permitted under 31 U.S.C. § 3720D and 34 C.F.R. Part 34. In other words, borrowers can avoid garnishment of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.