October Term 2017 · Docket 16-1432
Does applying a divorce revocation law to old insurance policies violate the Constitution?
The dispute centers on whether a state law that removes ex-spouses as insurance beneficiaries after divorce can apply to policies bought before the law existed.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Unikowsky argued the law violates the Contracts Clause.
Mr. Dvoretzky argued the Constitution forbids states from impairing contract obligations.
justice_questions
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 23-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 23-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the power of states to change contract terms. One side argues the law breaks a constitutional promise. The other side argues the law serves a public purpose.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 51-19
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 19, 2018.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 39-41
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down the law's application to their old policy.
the opposing sides want the Court to uphold the law's application to their old policy.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 51-19
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the law violates the Contracts Clause by impairing existing obligations.
the opposing sides argue the law serves a valid public interest in updating beneficiary designations.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 51-19
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if policyholders sometimes want to keep ex-spouses as beneficiaries.
Justice Gorsuch asked if the state could have achieved its goals prospectively instead.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 23-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 23-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-47
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of state power over private contracts. It determines whether states can retroactively alter insurance agreements. The outcome affects how divorce laws interact with financial planning.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 51-19
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 23-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 23-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 51-19
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.