Editing Supplemental Security Income (section)

===Collateral consequences of warrants, parole, and probation===
Since Congress enacted "fugitive felons" and parole/probation violation provisions in 1996, the Social Security Administration has suspended benefits and charged overpayments to individuals receiving SSI on the basis of outstanding warrants.<ref name="McIntyre 2003">{{cite journal|last=McIntyre|first=Gerald|title=Have You Seen a Fleeing Felon? Social Security Administration Targets SSI Recipients with Outstanding Warrants|journal=Clearinghouse Review|date=January–February 2003|url=http://povertylaw.org/node/1836|access-date=September 2, 2012}}</ref>
Enforcement of the provisions greatly increased in 2000, as SSA reached agreements
with local law enforcement to match databases.<ref name="McIntyre 2003" />

Individuals who are fleeing to avoid prosecution or incarceration for a felony or violating probation or parole are statutorily prohibited from receiving SSI or Title II Social Security benefits.<ref>42 U.S.C. §§&nbsp;1382(e)(4) (SSI); 402(x) (Title II)</ref>

The Social Security Administration interpreted the statutes broadly to include individuals whose names were matched against a warrant database.<ref name="McIntyre 2003" /> Some individuals lost benefits even though the warrant in question was for a different person.<ref name="urbanjustice.org">Urban Justice Project. Social Insecurity.http://www.urbanjustice.org/pdf/projects/Social_Insecurity_10_07.pdf</ref><ref name="McIntyre 2010">{{cite journal|last=McIntyre|first=Gerald|author2=Kevin Prindiville |author3=Anna Rich |title=Social Security Administration Retreats from "Unknowing Flight" Doctrine and will Pay Hundreds of Millions in Back Benefits|journal=Clearinghouse Review|date=January–February 2010}}</ref> For others, the presence of a warrant did not necessarily mean that an individual was "fleeing," or that the individual had violated probation or parole.<ref name="urbanjustice.org" />

As a result of two legal cases (''Martinez v. Astrue'' and ''Clark v. Astrue''), the SSA may not suspend benefits based merely on the evidence that a warrant had been issued.<ref>Clark v. Astrue, 602 F.3d (2d Cir. 2010)</ref><ref>Martinez v. Astrue settlement, available at http://www.nsclc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Martinez-v-Astrue-Settlement-Agreement.pdf</ref> Back benefits were owed to hundreds of thousands of recipients.<ref name="McIntyre 2010" /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/tag/clark-v-astrue/ |title=Clark v Astrue &#124; National Senior Citizens Law Center |access-date=2012-09-02 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120505105230/http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/tag/clark-v-astrue/ |archive-date=2012-05-05 }}</ref>