This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Oral argument in this case was heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, March 19, 2018 at 10:05 a.m.
According to Petitioners, the case presents the question whether applying a revocation‑on‑divorce statute to a life‑insurance policy that was purchased before the statute’s enactment violates the Contracts Clause.
Historically, revocation‑on‑divorce statutes were intended to align the law of life‑insurance policies with the law of wills.
Beneficiary designations are determined in accordance with the terms of the contract.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioners, the question before the Court is whether the application of a revocation‑on‑divorce statute to a life‑insurance policy purchased before the enactment of that statute violates the Contracts Clause.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
Petitioners argue that the Contracts Clause may be violated by applying the revocation‑on‑divorce statute to pre‑existing policies.
Petitioners contend that the Minnesota law assumes policyholders are inattentive to their beneficiary designations.
Respondent Position
According to Respondent, respondents argue that the Contracts Clause applies only to statutes enacted by legislatures, not to actions of courts.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kennedy asked whether, after the divorce but before the policy owner died, the owner paid premiums.
Justice Gorsuch asked what would happen if the policy did not go to its contingent beneficiaries.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan questioned whether the timing of the divorce relative to the statute mattered.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether it is a fair assumption that most people do not want a former spouse enriched after divorce.
Justice Ginsburg further asked whether it is reasonable for a legislature to assume that most people would rather leave life‑insurance proceeds to their children than to a divorced spouse.
Justice Gorsuch referenced Justice Marshall’s view that marriage contracts are not within the Contracts Clause’s cognizance and asked whether life‑insurance policies are.
- [1] a2c35f998ec1cf46c105-r1-1a8416c0d7927595.pdf, p. 4
- [2] a2c35f998ec1cf46c105-r1-1a8416c0d7927595.pdf, p. 24
- [3] a2c35f998ec1cf46c105-r1-1a8416c0d7927595.pdf, p. 45
- [4] a2c35f998ec1cf46c105-r1-1a8416c0d7927595.pdf, p. 46
- [5] a2c35f998ec1cf46c105-r1-1a8416c0d7927595.pdf, p. 47
- [6] a2c35f998ec1cf46c105-r1-1a8416c0d7927595.pdf, p. 69
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- a2c35f998ec1cf46c105-r1-1a8416c0d7927595.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.