|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|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...