The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments on Monday in Murr v. Wisconsin and Howell v. Howell [dockets]. In Murr v. Wisconsin [SCOTUSblog materials], the court heard arguments [transcript, PDF] regarding whether “parcel as a whole” in a regulatory taking case establishes that two legally distinct contiguous parcels must be combined for takings purposes. Petitioner in this case argued that the two parcels adjacent to each other, owned by sisters, should be treated separately. Petitioner focused on the court’s jurisprudence that a parcel cannot be segmented nor can parcels be aggregated. Therefore, under the takings analysis, petitioner argued that the parcels should be deemed as separate parcels. Respondent argued that while the parcels may have been purchased separated, they have been merged for “all relevant purposes” under state law. Under the state of Wisconsin’s analysis, respondent stated that the lots are deemed to not be completely separate from each other and the only distinguishing feature is the lot lines which neither prevent nor provide any rights in this circumstance. Therefore, under a takings analysis, the lots should be viewed as one single parcel.

In Howell v. Howell [SCOTUSblog materials], the court heard arguments [transcript, PDF] on whether the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA) [Congressional Research Service report] preempts a state court’s order directing a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for a reduction in their portion of veteran’s military retirement pay. Petitioner in this matter argues that Supreme Court precedent ruled that the USFSPA does not authorize state courts to treat waived Military Retirement Pay as divisible property, and that such a ruling applies to all waivers regardless of when they occur. Therefore, even though the waiver occurred post-divorce, the Military Retirement Pay is still not divisible property. Furthermore, petitioner pointed to numerous chances Congress had to revise the USFSPA to clarify the waiver deadline, yet failed to do so. As such, if a specific deadline would be required for the waiver to be applicable, Congress would have made such a deadline apparent. Respondent argued that the text and purpose of the Act are to protect the former spouse and as such, the time of divorce is paramount in the case. Since family courts must determine the extent of marital property at the time of the divorce a waiver should have to occur before the divorce in order for Military Retirement Pay to be deemed indivisible. Furthermore, respondent argued that the agreement made between the parties at the time of the divorce relied upon the current state of Military Retirement Pay. Therefore, to allow the veteran to unilaterally alter the terms of payment after divorce would put the former spouse at a significant disadvantage.