Howell v. Howell
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 15, 2017 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- May 15, 2017
- Docket
- No. 15-1031
- Argued
- March 20, 2017
- Term
- October Term 2016
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Federalism
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas (wrote a concurrence), Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer (wrote), Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan
Oral argument transcript and advocates
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2016 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus HOWELL v. HOWELL CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA No. 15–1031. Argued March 20, 2017—Decided May 15, 2017 The Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act authorizes States to treat veterans’ “disposable retired pay” as community prop- erty divisible upon divorce, 10 U. S. C. §1408, but expressly excludes from its definition of “disposable retired pay” amounts deducted from that pay “as a result of a waiver . . . required by law in order to re- ceive” disability benefits, §1408(a)(4)(B). The divorce decree of peti- tioner John Howell and respondent Sandra Howell awarded Sandra 50% of John’s future Air Force retirement pay, which she began to re- ceive when John retired the following year. About 13 years later, the Department of Veterans Affairs found that John was partially disa- bled due to an earlier service-related injury. To receive disability pay, federal law required John to give up an equivalent amount of…
Excerpt of a 22,593-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.