|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|
Experts continue to analyze last week's Fulton decision. Here are the final pieces in our symposium.
Thomas Berg & Douglas Laycock on the future of free-exercise challenges: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/protecting-free-exercise-under-smith-and-after-smith/
Holly Hollman on the ruling's many unresolved questions: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-requires-religious-exemption-but-leaves-many-questions-unanswered/
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
Here’s @AHoweBlogger’s analysis on the Supreme Court’s major NCAA ruling today.
NCAA athletes win 9-0 on educational perks as Kavanaugh calls out ban on direct payments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday reshaped the relationship between universities and the athletes who play college sports. ...
SCOTUSblog is hiring!
We're seeking a new blog manager -- a fun and fast-paced role that includes writing articles, tracking statistics, managing the content on our site, and helping to plan and execute all our news coverage of the court.
SCOTUSblog is hiring a new blog manager - SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog is seeking a new blog manager. We are looking for a smart, creative person who is fascinated by the ...
After the Supreme Court handed down three opinions this morning, 12 cases remain outstanding for this term. They include voting rights, student free speech, and anonymous donors. We expect more opinions on Wednesday, June 23 at 10:00 a.m. ET.
We will open the live blog at 9:45.
The third and final opinion of the day is in U.S. v. Arthrex. In a fragmented decision, the court holds that the appointment of administrative patent judges violated the Constitution’s appointments clause because they are not “inferior” officers. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
NEW: In a victory for college athletes, SCOTUS unanimously invalidates a portion of the NCAA's "amateurism" rules. The court says the NCAA can no longer bar colleges from providing athletes with education-related benefits such as free laptops or paid post-graduate internships.
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.