395 U.S. 337, 89 S. Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969)
Family Finance Corp. of Bay View instituted a garnishment action in Wisconsin state court against petitioner Sniadach as defendant and Miller Harris Instrument Co. as garnishee.1 The complaint alleged a claim of $420 on a promissory note.2
The garnishee filed its answer stating it had wages of $63.18 under its control earned by petitioner and unpaid.3 It would pay one-half to petitioner as a subsistence allowance and hold the other half subject to the order of the court.4
Petitioner was served with the summons and complaint the same day as the garnishee.5 Under the Wisconsin statute, the clerk of the court issues the summons at the request of the creditor’s lawyer.6 Service on the garnishee sets in motion the freezing of the wages.7 The statute gives a plaintiff 10 days in which to serve the summons and complaint on the defendant after service on the garnishee.8
Petitioner moved that the garnishment proceedings be dismissed.9 The lower state court approved the procedure, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court sustained that decision in 37 Wis. 2d 163, 154 N. W. 2d 259.10 The United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in 393 U. S. 1078.11
Petitioner was a resident of the Wisconsin community where the action was brought, and in personam jurisdiction was readily obtainable.12 The wages subject to garnishment represented a specialized type of property.13 The statutory exemption granted the wage earner was generally insufficient to support the debtor for any one week.14 Congressional investigations had disclosed instances where prejudgment garnishment led to loss of employment and significant drain on family income.15
Whether the Wisconsin prejudgment garnishment procedure violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by freezing a wage earner's wages without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard?16
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any taking of property. This requirement applies except in extraordinary situations. In those situations the statute must be narrowly drawn to protect special state or creditor interests.17
Yes. The established facts show that Family Finance Corp. of Bay View instituted garnishment against Sniadach by requesting the clerk to issue a summons served on garnishee Miller Harris Instrument Co.18 This immediately froze half of the $63.18 wages without prior notice or hearing to the wage earner.19 Petitioner Sniadach was a resident of the Wisconsin community where in personam jurisdiction was readily obtainable.20 Yet the procedure froze her wages upon service on the garnishee alone.21 This interim deprivation of the specialized property of wages occurred without any chance for Sniadach to present defenses before the taking.22 The statutory exemption was generally insufficient to support the debtor.23
The facts further establish that such summary freezing imposes tremendous hardship on wage earners and their families through potential job loss and income drain.24 This confirms that the procedure violates fundamental principles of procedural due process.25
The Wisconsin prejudgment garnishment procedure violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.26
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Harlan concurred to make explicit that the property interest deprived is the use of the garnished wages during the interim between garnishment and the main suit resolution.27 He stated that this deprivation cannot be characterized as de minimis and therefore requires the usual requisites of notice and a prior hearing aimed at establishing the probable validity of the underlying claim.28 Harlan explained that his position rests on norms of fundamental fairness drawn from the Anglo-American legal heritage in addition to constitutional specifics.29 He rejected the notion that simultaneous advice to the garnishee or later plenary adjudication satisfies due process.30
He distinguished special situations where summary action protects vital governmental interests but found no such justification here.31
Justice Black dissented on the ground that the majority usurped state legislative power by invalidating the Wisconsin garnishment statute based on policy disagreements rather than constitutional text.32 He observed that the law provides notice to the debtor and a full opportunity to present all legal defenses at the regular trial on the merits.33 Black noted that the petitioner had made no personal showing of the injustices alleged, such as job loss or inability to post bond.34
The amount withheld was only $31.59.35 He argued that historical practices of attachment and garnishment dating back centuries, affirmed in cases such as Ownbey v. Morgan and McKay v. McInnes, should not be overturned absent a strong textual basis.36 The decision improperly revives a natural law approach to due process.37
Whether the Wisconsin garnishment statute is narrowly drawn to address any extraordinary situation requiring special protection to a state or creditor interest?38
Summary procedures may satisfy due process in extraordinary situations only when the statute is narrowly drawn to meet unusual conditions requiring special protection to a state or creditor interest.39
No. The established facts establish that Sniadach was a resident of the Wisconsin community with in personam jurisdiction readily obtainable.40 No situation requiring special protection to a state or creditor interest was presented.41 The Wisconsin statute applies generally by allowing the clerk to issue summons at the creditor's lawyer request.42 It freezes wages upon service on the garnishee in all cases without any narrow tailoring or limitations to extraordinary conditions.43
Congressional investigations referenced in the facts show the procedure operates in ordinary debt collection contexts rather than unusual circumstances.44 This confirms that the statute fails the narrow-drawing requirement for the exception to apply.45
The Wisconsin garnishment statute is not narrowly drawn to address any extraordinary situation requiring special protection to a state or creditor interest.46
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Black would have sustained the statute as a valid exercise of state legislative authority over remedies such as garnishment.47 He emphasized that the Wisconsin Supreme Court correctly upheld the law because it merely preserves the status quo pending trial and has deep historical roots accepted under due process.48 Black pointed out that the petitioner was served on the same day as the garnishee.49
No personal showing of harm from the ten-day service window or other features was made.50 This renders challenges based on hypothetical effects on others improper for judicial resolution.51