In the case of Mackey et al. v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Georgia's garnishment statute did not violate federal law prohibiting states from enforcing judgments against Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) benefits. The plaintiffs were a group of debtors whose ERISA-protected pension funds had been seized by Lanier Collection Agency to satisfy outstanding debts under Georgia's garnishment laws. They argued that this violated ERISA’s anti-alienation provision which prohibits creditors from attaching or seizing these benefits to pay off a debtor’s obligations. However, the court disagreed and held in favor of Lanier Collection Agency stating that while ERISA does protect certain employee benefits from most legal processes used by creditors, it does not provide an absolute shield against all state-law claims and remedies. The court concluded that Congress intended for some exceptions to exist within its broad preemption scheme when it enacted ERISA.

In the dissenting opinion for Mackey et al. v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that Georgia's garnishment statute was in violation of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). He contended that the majority misinterpreted Congress' intent when it enacted ERISA and failed to recognize its purpose - to protect employee benefits from creditors. According to him, allowing states like Georgia to seize these funds directly contradicts this federal law's objective. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that an exemption from state garnishment laws would create administrative difficulties for pension plans; instead, he believed such exemptions were necessary and manageable under federal law.