## Facts

- John Howell, an Air Force veteran, and Sandra Howell divorced in Arizona in 1991.
- The divorce decree awarded Sandra 50% of John’s future Air Force retirement pay; she began receiving that share when John retired in 1992.
- About 13 years after the divorce, John was found partially disabled and elected to receive federal disability benefits, which required waiving an equivalent amount of his military retired pay.
- John’s waiver reduced his retirement pay by about $250 per month, lowering the amount Sandra received under the 50% award.
- Sandra sought state-court relief to restore the value of her share as contemplated at divorce.
- The Arizona family court ordered John to compensate Sandra so she would receive her full 50% without regard to the waiver; Arizona appellate courts affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. § 1408, preempts a state-court order requiring a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for reductions in retirement pay caused by a post-divorce waiver to receive disability benefits.
2. Whether a state court may treat such indemnification as enforcement of a “vested” property right in the pre-waiver amount of retired pay.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Arizona Supreme Court and remanded.
- The Court held that a state court may not order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss in the spouse’s portion of retirement pay resulting from the veteran’s waiver of retired pay to receive service-related disability benefits.
- The Court concluded that the timing of the waiver (post-divorce rather than pre-divorce) does not change the preemption analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Under the USFSPA, states may divide only “disposable retired pay,” which excludes amounts waived to receive disability benefits.
- Federal law bars states from treating waived military retirement pay as divisible marital/community property, and states cannot reach the waived amount indirectly through reimbursement or indemnification orders.
- State courts cannot “vest” an interest in payments that federal law places beyond their authority to allocate.
- Substance controls over labels: a remedy framed as enforcement of a decree or payment from other assets is preempted if it effectively compensates for the waived retired-pay portion.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the USFSPA preempts state-court indemnification orders that require a veteran to reimburse an ex-spouse for retirement-pay reductions caused by a disability-benefits waiver, even when the waiver occurs after the divorce and the decree purported to award a fixed share of the pre-waiver retirement pay.


Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214 (2017)