Veterans Decry Divorce Law That Congress Refuses to Change

The Supreme Court declined to review divorce law that divides veterans retired pay

June 19, 2007, Tampa, FL – Twenty-six years after Congress accepted its invitation in the case of McCarty v. McCarty to spell out divorce courts’ limits for dividing veterans’ retired pay, the Supreme Court declined on June 18, 2007, to review a challenge from divorced veterans that the resulting statute is unconstitutional. 

Tired of unsuccessful legislative efforts against the statute –- entitled the Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA)–- a group of divorced veterans formed the USFSPA Litigation Support Group (ULSG) to challenge the law in court. Dozens of divorced veterans affected by the law –- men and women who served in the military’s major branches – signed onto the lawsuit filed in 2004 in the United States District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, under the title Adkins, et al. v. Rumsfeld, which later was renamed Adkins v. Gates, to reflect the replacement of the Secretary of Defense.

The lawsuit worked its way from the federal trial court to the United States Court of Appeals in Richmond, with both courts refusing to grant relief against the USFSPA but also acknowledging that the law is not airtight against attacks by future litigants.

The divorced veterans then petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the USFSPA’s constitutionality. Several months later, on June 18, the Supreme Court declined the review petition without comment…

The ULSG contends that Congress may have meant well in enacting the USFSPA, but that the law has resulted in harsh consequences to divorced veterans, many of them unanticipated and unintended. ULSG officer Jack C. Crutchfield said: “Although the USFSPA was passed when most beneficiaries of the law were women, the tide has greatly changed since then, with countless female veterans now being harmed by this law.”

In this litigation, the divorced veterans asserted that among the law's failings is that it does not even exempt veterans who joined the military before the law was ever passed. The litigants assert that this amounts to an unconstitutionally retroactive application of the law and unconstitutional taking of property, seeing that the law was passed only after the Supreme Court said that veterans' retirement pay could not be divided in divorce court.

After the divorced veterans petitioned the Supreme Court to review the USFSPA’s constitutionality, the GI-Janes and American Retirees Association veterans groups filed friend of the court briefs supporting the veterans’ petition. Signing onto the American Retirees Association’s brief were the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the National Association for Uniformed Services, and the Retired Enlisted Association.

The divorced veterans’ lead attorney, Jonathan L. Katz said: “The Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case does not reflect the Court’s view on the statute’s Constitutionality or flaws. The Court, having just nine justices and a mountain of annual review petitions, accepts only one to two percent of petitions for review. We look forward to future court challenges against this unjust law.”

ULSG officer Jack Crutchfield said: “The USFSPA is unconstitutional, and this court challenge needed to be brought. Our excellent legal team brought to light the serious flaws in this law. Thousands of divorced men and women who proudly served their country are victims of this unjust law and feel its profound financial harm daily; the law needs to be stricken.”

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: MEDIA INQUIRIES: Jonathan L. Katz, Attorney at Law Lead Counsel for ULSG, LLC Marks & Katz, LLC 1400Spring Street, Suite 410 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 495-4300 Fax:(301) 495-8815 E-mail: [email protected]

NON-MEDIAINQUIRIES ULSG, LLC PO Box 270337 Tampa, FL 33688-0337 email: [email protected] http://www.ULSG.org.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. VT has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is VT endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)