SSI and SSDI benefits in bank account protected from offset by bank to recoup bank fees. Anti-assignment provision 42 U.S.C. §407(a), should be construed broadly. "Other legal process" encompasses extra-judicial remedies such as setoffs.

Order to pay bond is not an attachment or garnishment prohibited by the Anti-Assignment clause of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §407(a), (a person's entitlement to Social Security payments shall not "be subject to execution, levy, garnishment, or other legal process) where bond order does nothing to attach or garnish Social Security benefits.

Court will not recharacterize retroactive SSI as SSD in order to undo recoupment of state aid from retro SSI. Policies in favor of recoupment of state aid from SSI and recoupment of overpaid SSI from SSD are stronger than policy to protect SSD from assignments under §407(a) of the Social Security Act. Anomalous situation - where state aid is recouped if SSI retro is paid before SSD retro, but state aid is not recouped if SSD retro is paid first - does not render statutory scheme unconstitutional because it's rational. Social Security benefits, like SSDI, have been regarded in some contexts as "property" for constitutional purposes. But, Windfall Offset Provision (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-6(a)) does not violate anti-assignment clause and is not unconstitutional because it's rational. Anomalous situation - where state aid is recouped if retroactive SSI is paid before retroactive SSDI, but state aid is not recouped if SSDretro is paid first - does not render statutory scheme unconstitutional. There's no statutory or constitutional violation in provision allowing deduction from SSD retro to recoup overpayment of SSI retro. Provision should be read as an internal computation of how much SSI and SSD a person is due - whereby a prior overpayment of one benefit reduces the amount of the other benefit paid for the same time period.

Title II benefits recouped for overpayment recovery can be counted as income when determining SSI payment levels. Counting withheld Title II amounts as income does not violate the availability principle. This was brought as a class action with a Massachusetts class certified.