construction of the statute that would impose liability on the Government for honoring a writ issued by a court with subject-matter jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the law applicable to private garnishees. It has long been the rule that at least when the obligor receives notice of the garnishment, the garnishee cannot be liable for honoring a writ of garnishment. See Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215, 226–227 (1905). For example, after imposing on all employers a duty to honor writs of garnishment, the District of Columbia Code, which Congress itself enacted, see 77 Stat. 555, provides:

"Any payments made by an employer-garnishee in conformity with this section shall be a discharge of the liability of the employer to the judgment debtor to the extent of the payment." D. C. Code § 16-573(c) (1981). The law in Alaska and Alabama is to similar effect," as it is in the great majority of jurisdictions. 15 Thus, to hold the Gov

subject to legal process; it merely means that the question of whether such moneys will be subject to legal process will be determined in accordance with State law in like manner as if the United States were a private person." Id., at 12914.

See also S. Rep. No. 94-1350, p. 9 (1976); S. Rep. No. 93-1356, pp. 53-54 (1974); 120 Cong. Rec. 40338-40339 (1974) (remarks of Sen. Montoya); id., at 41810 (remarks of Reps. Ullman and Waggonner).

"See Ala. Code §§ 6-6-453(a), 6-6-461 (1975); Alaska Stat. Ann. § 09.40.040 (1983).

15 See, e. g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-1592 (1982); Ark. Stat. Ann. § 31-146 (1962); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 706.154(b) (West Supp. 1984); Idaho Code § 8-510 (1979); Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, § 12-812 (1983); Ind. Code § 34-1-11–29 (1982); Iowa Code § 642.18 (1983); Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 11-601(a) (1984); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 246, § 43 (West 1959); Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4061(3) (1968); Minn. Stat. §571.54 (1982); Miss. Code Ann. § 11-35-37 (1972); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 525.070 (1978); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 512:38 (1983-1984); N. J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:17-53 (West Supp. 1984); N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law §5209 (McKinney 1978); N. D. Cent. Code § 32-09.1-15 (Supp. 1983); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2716.21(D) (Supp. 1983); Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 1233 (1961); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 29.195 (1983);

ernment liable in this case would be to conclude that Congress intended to adopt a different standard for liability than would be applicable to a private employer. Such a conclusion is foreclosed by the statute and its legislative history. Finally, the underlying purpose of § 659 is significant. The statute was enacted to remedy the plight of persons left destitute because they had no speedy and efficacious means of ensuring that their child support and alimony would be paid. 16 Burdening the garnishment process with inquiry into

S. D. Codified Laws § 21-18-32 (1979); Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-7-117 (1980); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 12, § 3081 (1973); Wash. Rev. Code § 7.33.200 (1983); W.Va. Code § 38-7-25 (1966); Wis. Stat. § 812.16(2) (1981-1982); Wyo. Stat. §1-15-302 (1977).

16 Senator Montoya said:

"The modification proposed by the committee provides that money due from the United States to any individual citizen, including service men and women, may be garnished as a result of legal process for payment of alimony and child support.

"What this really means is that civil servants and military personnel can be forced to accept full responsibility for care of families-especially dependent children-in the same way that other Americans can.

"It is tragic that there are any men or women in the United States who would willingly desert their children, leaving wives and families to struggle alone or to go on our already overburdened welfare rolls.

"However, as any member of the judiciary or legal profession can tell you, the truth is that there are always some who try to avoid responsibility and who must be forced to pay debts.

"Mr. President, the child support proposal contained in the committee substitute will give us an opportunity to prove to these women and children that justice exists for them, too, in the United States. The proposal is not new. I believe it is time for us to make sure that this small change is made in our law in order to correct what is patently a disgraceful situation. We must give the wives and children of Federal employees and retirees the same legal protections which we have provided for all other American women and children." 120 Cong. Rec. 40338-40339 (1974).

To similar effect, see S. Rep. No. 93-1356, pp. 43-44 (1974); 120 Cong. Rec. 40323 (1974) (remarks of Sen. Long); id., at 41809 (remarks of Rep. Ullman). See also H. R. Rep. No. 92-481, pp. 17-18 (1971).

the state court's jurisdiction over the obligor can only frustrate this fundamental purpose as a consequence of the resulting delay in the process of collection. And "[b]ecause

delay so often results in loss of substantial rights, the effect frequently will be also to make impossible the ultimate as well as the immediate collection of what is due; and to substitute a right of lifelong litigation for one of certain means of subsistence." Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U. S. 220, 239, n. 4 (1946) (Rutledge, J., dissenting in part). Such a result could not be more at odds with congressional intent.

IV

As part of the 1977 amendment, Congress authorized the promulgation of "regulations for the implementation of the provisions of section 659," 42 U. S. C. § 661(a). In the last sentence of §659(f), Congress indicated that the United States could not be held liable for honoring a writ of garnishment so long as payment is made in accordance with these regulations. Because Congress explicitly delegated authority to construe the statute by regulation, in this case we must give the regulations legislative and hence controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or plainly contrary to the statute." Moreover, implementing regulations which simplify a disbursing officer's task in deciding whether to honor a writ of garnishment are entitled to special deference, since that was the precise objective of Congress when it delegated authority to issue regulations. 18

The relevant regulations squarely address the question presented by this case. The regulations require that within 15 days of the service of process, the garnishee must give notice of service and a copy of the process to the employee. 5 CFR § 581.302(a) (1984). The regulations further provide that the garnishee entity must honor the process except in

17 See Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U. S. 34, 44 (1981); Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416, 425-426 (1977).

18 See 123 Cong. Rec. 12912-12913 (1977); S. Rep. No. 94-1350, p. 6 (1976).

specified situations, none of which involves the issuing court's lack of jurisdiction over the employee.19 They then state:

"If a governmental entity receives legal process which, on its face, appears to conform to the laws of the jurisdiction from which it was issued, the entity shall not be required to ascertain whether the authority which issued the legal process had obtained personal jurisdiction over the obligor." § 581.305(f).20

Thus, the regulations definitively resolve the question before us." They cannot possibly be considered "clearly in

19 The regulations provide:

"The governmental entity shall comply with legal process, except where the process cannot be complied with because:

"(1) It does not, on its face, conform to the laws of the jurisdiction from which it was issued;

"(2) The legal process would require the withholding of funds not deemed moneys due from, or payable by, the United States as remuneration for employment;

"(3) The legal process is not brought to enforce legal obligation(s) for alimony and/or child support;

"(4) It does not comply with the mandatory provisions of this part; “(5) An order of a court of competent jurisdiction enjoining or suspending the operation of the legal process has been served on the governmental entity; or

"(6) Where notice is received that the obligor has appealed either the legal process or the underlying alimony and/or child support order, payment of moneys subject to the legal process shall be suspended until the governmental entity is ordered by the court, or other authority, to resume payments. However, no suspension action shall be taken where the applicable law of the jurisdiction wherein the appeal is filed requires compliance with the legal process while an appeal is pending. Where the legal process has been issued by a court in the District of Columbia, a motion to quash shall be deemed equivalent to an appeal." 5 CFR § 581.305(a) (1984). 20 See also 48 Fed. Reg. 811, 26279 (1983).

21

Respondent argues that § 581.305(f) is not entitled to deference because it was not promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management until after this suit was brought. But that fact is of no consequence. Congress authorized the issuance of regulations so that problems arising in the administration of the statute could be addressed. Litigation often brings to light latent ambiguities or unanswered questions that might not otherwise

consistent" with the statute or "arbitrary," since the terms "legal process" and "court of competent jurisdiction" are at least ambiguous," and they further congressional intent to facilitate speedy enforcement of garnishment orders and to minimize the burden on the Government.

V

The plain language of the statute, its legislative history and underlying purposes, as well as the explicit regulations authorized by the statute itself, all indicate that the Government cannot be held liable for honoring a writ of garnishment which is "regular on its face" and has been issued by a court with subject-matter jurisdiction to issue such orders. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

be apparent. Thus, assuming the promulgation of § 581.305(f) was a response to this suit, that demonstrates only that the suit brought to light an additional administrative problem of the type that Congress thought should be addressed by regulation. When OPM responded to this problem by issuing regulations it was doing no more than the task which Congress had assigned it. See generally Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. United States, 562 F.2d 972, 979-985 (CA5 1977), cert. denied, 436 U. S. 944 (1978). See supra, at 828.

22

1

1