## Facts

- Richard John McCarty, a Regular Army officer, filed for dissolution of marriage in California before completing the 20 years of service required for retirement eligibility.
- Federal law provides that a qualifying officer is entitled to military retired pay, which ends at the officer’s death; Congress also created limited survivor-benefit mechanisms for dependents.
- California community property law generally gives each spouse an equal interest in community and quasi-community property upon dissolution.
- The California trial court treated McCarty’s military retirement benefits as quasi-community property and ordered that, when he retired, his former spouse would receive a portion of his retired pay (about 45% under the decree).
- The California Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting the argument that federal law preempted application of state community property principles.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supremacy Clause requires preemption of state community property law that divides a service member’s military retired pay upon divorce.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the state judgment.
- Federal law governing military retired pay precludes state courts from dividing that pay under community property or quasi-community property principles.
- The Court concluded the federal retirement scheme gives the spouse no ownership interest in retired pay and contains no authorization for state division.
- The Court held that state-law division would conflict with the federal statutory design and would cause major harm to clear and substantial federal interests, including providing for retired service members and supporting military personnel objectives.

## Legal Principles

- State domestic-relations property rules are preempted when they conflict with federal statutes and materially impair clear and substantial federal interests.
- Military retired pay, as structured by federal statute, is the personal entitlement of the retiree; absent congressional authorization, a state may not recharacterize it as divisible marital property.
- Where Congress creates a detailed benefit scheme (including limited dependent-protection mechanisms), courts should not infer state authority to redistribute the benefit in a manner inconsistent with that scheme.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal military retirement statutes preempted California’s community property division of military retired pay, invalidating the state decree awarding the former spouse a share of the retiree’s pay.


McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981)