Stimulus Checks Are on the Way. Debt Collectors Could Seize Them.

There’s nothing in the new legislation to prevent stimulus funds from being garnished.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The House passed a $1.9 trillion COVID relief package on Wednesday, and President Joe Biden is expected to sign it this week, ushering in a sweeping set of programs to aid Americans battered by the pandemic. The package includes expanded unemployment benefits, rent relief, a temporary allowance for families with children, and $1,400 stimulus checks.

But thanks to a quirk of the legislative rule-making process, those $1,400 checks could disappear from millions of Americans’ bank accounts. Thatā€™s because there is nothing in the bill to stop debt collectors from seizing stimulus checks to pay off private debts.

The last COVID relief package, passed in December, included protections to stop debt collectors from garnishing stimulus checks. But the first relief bill, enacted last spring, did not, and some collectors seized stimulus payments from people with debtsā€”a worrisome sign for this next round, which is even more targeted to low- and middle-income households.

ā€œLast year, some of the major debt collection organizations said that they would not try to garnish stimulus payments,” says Lauren Saunders, associate director at the National Consumer Law Center. “But we know that it happened. We saw a number of headlines, and we heard from a number of consumers who had their payments garnished.”

Those most at risk are people who have a debt collection judgment against them, explains Saunders. These types of judgments are particularly byzantine: The majority are issued without the borrowers present, either because they werenā€™t notified of the case or because they didnā€™t have the funds to fight it. Tens of millions of American householdsā€”disproportionately people of colorā€”have debts in collection. 

If a debt collector has obtained a judgment against a consumer, the collector can now issue an order requiring a bank to turn over stimulus money as soon as it hits someoneā€™s account.

Many states have rules about how much money can be garnished from someone’s account and require a proportion to remain for living expenses. That makes a moment when large stimulus checks are being deposited nationwide a particularly opportune time for debtors to collect. 

Several states have passed laws to protect COVID relief money from being seized. But federal lawmakers did not include this protection in the package currently headed to Bidenā€™s desk. Thatā€™s because it would likely have been thrown out due to something called the ā€œByrd rule.ā€ To avoid having to overcome a filibuster with 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats passed the relief bill using a process known as budget reconciliation. The Byrd rule stops lawmakers from tacking on measures to reconciliation bills that won’t directly affect the budget. Itā€™s quite likely that a provision protecting stimulus checks from seizure by debt collectors would have been thrown out under this rule, explains Saunders.

The result is that debt collectors could start seizing stimulus checks as soon as they start going outā€”which could be in a matter of days. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on Tuesday that he would introduce separate legislation to shield stimulus checks from garnishment.

ā€œThe first set of payments were not protected,” Saunders says. “The second payments were. And the third set will not be unless Congress immediatelyā€”and I really mean immediatelyā€”passes a new bill, because the payments could start going out any day now.” This week, the National Consumer Law Center and 18 other financial services and consumer protection groups sent a letter to House and Senate Leaders urging swift passage of a standalone bill that would protect stimulus checks from seizure by debt collectors. 

A spokesperson for Wyden said that he would introduce legislation ā€œsoonā€ but did not give an exact timeframe. Over the summer, Wyden and his colleague Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced a bipartisan bill to shield money from the first round of stimulus from garnishment. It passed the Senate with unanimous approval, and senators urged the House to pass an identical version. But the House had already proposed a second relief package, the HEROES Act, which included new stimulus checks and protections from garnishment. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate