|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-1031||Ariz.||Mar 20, 2017||May 15, 2017||8-0||Breyer||OT 2016|
Holding: A state court may not order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss in the divorced spouse's portion of the veteran's retirement pay caused by the veteran's waiver of retirement pay to receive service-related disability benefits.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on May 15, 2017. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 16 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 17, 2016)|
|Mar 11 2016||Brief of respondent Sandra Howell in opposition filed.|
|Mar 28 2016||Reply of petitioner John Howell filed.|
|Mar 30 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 15, 2016.|
|Apr 18 2016||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Oct 17 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Nov 1 2016||Supplemental brief of petitioner John Howell filed.|
|Nov 2 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 22, 2016.|
|Nov 28 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 2, 2016.|
|Dec 2 2016||Petition GRANTED.|
|Dec 22 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.|
|Dec 22 2016||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner John Howell.|
|Dec 29 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for respondent.|
|Jan 9 2017||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Jan 17 2017||Brief of petitioner John Howell filed.|
|Jan 24 2017||Brief amici curiae of Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Operation Firing for Effect filed.|
|Feb 3 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 20, 2017|
|Feb 3 2017||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Arizona.|
|Feb 16 2017||Brief of respondent Sandra Howell filed.|
|Feb 21 2017||Record received from the Supreme Court of Arizona. The record is electronic.|
|Feb 22 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Feb 23 2017||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 23 2017||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Mar 6 2017||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Mar 13 2017||Reply of petitioner John Howell filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Charles W. Wirken, Phoenix, Ariz.; and Ilana H. Eisenstein, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|May 15 2017||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Gorsuch, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|Jun 19 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jun 19 2017||MANDATE ISSUED|
Today at SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.