A Review of Justice Jackson’s First Opinion

Justice Jackson’s first opinion gives insight into a larger question facing the equitable distribution of the proceeds of escheatment. In Delaware v. Pennsylvania, et. al, a collection of cases between states in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, Justice Jackson penned her first unanimous opinion. Arguably an exercise in statutory interpretation, the Court held that the the Disposition of Abandoned Money Or­ders and Traveler’s Checks Act (Federal Disposition Act or FDA), 88 Stat. 1525, 12 U. S. C. §2501 et seq., applied to Agent Checks and Teller Checks offered by MoneyGram.  As a result, unclaimed or abandoned funds escheat to the state in which the service was offered—not the state of incorporation as common law had previously dictated.   

The Opinion is poignant and concise in its reasoning.  Justice Jackson acknowledges that the Court has discussed similar questions of escheatment in the context of money orders in Pennsylvania, 407 U. S., at 208; Western Union Telegraph Co., 368 U. S., at 72.  Throughout the text of the Opinion, Justice Jackson relies on Pennsylvania to explain the statute’s purpose.  The purpose was simple—to equitably distribute the escheated funds to the states and provide statutory mechanisms for states that do not require detailed record keeping for money orders and the like. Then, she argues that the statute applies to instruments similar to money orders. In that she defines money orders as being prepaid financial instruments used to transmit money to a named payee. And concludes that the FDA was drafted to address the issue of inequitable escheatment as is relevant here.

Unimpressed by both the State of Delaware and Special Master’s arguments claiming that the FDA did not apply to the Agent Checks and Teller Checks, Justice Jackson rips into the clearly undeveloped arguments presented by Delaware and the Special Master. She only gives a slither of credibility to the argument that if not read narrowly the FDA encompasses more than expected. But this is not relevant in the instant case and neither party could provide tangible examples of unintended instruments coming under the purview of the FDA. So Justice Jackson moved on. In a last attempt to save their case, Petitioners then question the term “third party bank checks.” Neither side even considered defining this term and neither does Justice Jackson.  That is a conversation for later.

As reading through the opinion, I looked for a deeper understanding of escheatment, its application to the intangible, and its relevance for communities of color. Furthermore, how should we understand Western Union and MoneyGram, which are all services heavily used by poor black and brown communities as well as immigrant communities. Is there a social issue here that we are missing—and what does this mean for us.