|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|
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.