Schism v. United States

Last updated
Schism v. United States
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Full case nameWilliam O. Schism and Robert Reinlie v. United States
DecidedNovember 18, 2002 2002
Citation(s)316 F.3d 1259
Case history
Subsequent historyCertiorari denied, June 2, 2003
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Haldane Mayer, Pauline Newman, Paul Redmond Michel, S. Jay Plager, Alan Lourie, Raymond C. Clevenger, Randall R. Rader, Alvin Schall, William Curtis Bryson, Arthur J. Gajarsa, Richard Linn, Timothy B. Dyk, and Sharon Prost
Case opinions
MajorityMichel, joined by Lourie, Clevenger, Rader, Schall, Bryson, Linn, Dyk, and Prost
DissentMayer, joined by Newman, Plager, Gajarsa

Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2002), was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims arising out of a 1998 lawsuit brought against the United States in an attempt to ensure that military benefits promised in exchange for military service would continue. [1] Ultimately, the Federal Circuit heard the case en banc and denied the benefits requested by the plaintiffs, leaving it to Congress to fashion a solution. [1] It has been described as "[o]ne of the most important cases the court decided" in the area of military pay and benefits. [2]

Contents

Facts of the case

The Federal Circuit summarized the facts of the case as follows:

The United States sought to encourage people to join the armed services during the World War II and Korean War era and make service a career. Military recruiters, under the direction of superiors, verbally promised recruits that if they served on active duty for at least 20 years, they would receive free lifetime medical care for themselves and their dependents. The government concedes such promises were made in good faith and relied upon. The plaintiffs allege that the promises were fulfilled until 1995 when, the plaintiffs assert, the government breached these implied-in-fact contracts by effectively denying the plaintiffs free care; they had to purchase Medicare Part B insurance in order to be treated by civilian doctors because space was no longer available in military facilities where care and medications were free. We must decide whether the government is bound by those promises. Plaintiffs Schism and Reinlie appealed a summary judgment by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida holding that because the promises were not authorized they are not enforceable. Schism v. United States, 19 F.Supp.2d 1287, 1295 (N.D.Fla.1998). The district court concluded that because no statute authorized these promises, no valid contract was formed between the government and plaintiffs (or other similarly-situated military retirees, i.e., those who entered service prior to 1956 and by 1995 were 65 or more years of age). [3]

Plaintiffs

Sam Schism official photo (1).jpg

The primary named plaintiff in the case was Lt. Col. William "Sam" O. Schism Jr., a decorated combat Veteran of the US Navy and US Air Force, who had served in WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam. Schism served in the United States Air Special Operations Command, 4th Air Commando Squadron, 7th Special Operations Squadron, 16th Special Operations Squadron, 919th Special Operations Wing, and for the OSI. His combat and special operation experiences, specifically during the Vietnam conflict, were highlighted in 'Call Sign: Spectre' by Jeff Noecker [4] and 'Spectre Gunner' by David M. Burns. [5] Schism also appeared in the documentary series DC Wings Over Vietnam. [6] Schism was inducted into the Air Commando Association Hall of Fame on October 15, 2022, at the annual ACA awards banquet held in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.

Schism was the aircraft commander (AC) of the Lockheed AC-130A [7] gunship 'The First Lady' (also known as 'The Arbitrator'). Flying out of The Royal Thai Air Force base in Ubon Thailand [8] whilst on a 'truck hunt mission' on March 25, 1971, the aircraft took a direct hit from enemy anti-aircraft attacks over the Ho Chi Minh Trail resulting in a crash landing with zero casualties and full aircraft recovery. [4] Schism was awarded the United States Distinguished Flying Cross [9] for this mission. [4] The 'First Lady' is now on display at the US Air Force Armament Museum located in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.

Schism and fellow plaintiff Robert Reinlie filed Schism v. United States, [10] in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Schism was represented by Brigadier General and Medal of Honor recipient George "Bud" Day. After the district court denied relief, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and then went to the United States Supreme Court, which denied certiorari , thereby upholding the Federal Circuit ruling that any relief needed to come from Congress: [11]

The United States Department of Justice, arguing the case on behalf of the United States, wrote: "We understand and appreciate the dissatisfaction of the plaintiffs with the change in the retirement pay system, as they have rendered long and faithful service to our country in time of peace and war. However, if they are to get any relief, it must come from Congress, as this is not within [a court's] jurisdiction." [12]

Panel decision

The case was initially heard by a judicial panel composed of Chief Judge Haldane Mayer, Judge Pauline Newman, and Judge S. Jay Plager. The panel unanimously found that the recruiters, in promising lifetime healthcare to recruits at the direction of the Department of Defense, were making a valid offer with appropriate consideration to create a binding contract. The government sought en banc review, which was granted.

Following the en banc hearing, the court as a whole reversed the panel in a nine to four decision written by Judge Paul Redmond Michel, which held that the recruiters had no authority to bind the government to the promises that were made because Congress had not provided for such care. All of the original panel members, along with Judge Arthur Gajarsa, dissented from this ruling. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit</span> Federal appellate court for the western U.S.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is the U.S. federal court of appeals that has appellate jurisdiction over the U.S. district courts in the following federal judicial districts:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Danny Julian Boggs</span> American judge

Danny Julian Boggs is an American attorney and a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed to the court in 1986 and served as its Chief judge from September 2003 to August 2009. Boggs was on the short list of President George W. Bush's candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bump stock</span> Gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing

Bump stocks or bump fire stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing. Bump firing is the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire ammunition cartridges in rapid succession.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Milan Smith</span> American judge

Milan Dale Smith Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009. Milan Smith is neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diarmuid O'Scannlain</span> American judge

Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His chambers are located in Portland, Oregon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul V. Niemeyer</span> American judge

Paul Victor Niemeyer is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.

Voting rights of United States citizens who live in Puerto Rico, like the voting rights of residents of other United States territories, differ from those of United States citizens in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Residents of Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories do not have voting representation in the United States Congress, and are not entitled to electoral votes for president. The United States Constitution grants congressional voting representation to U.S. states, which Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories are not, specifying that members of Congress shall be elected by direct popular vote and that the president and the vice president shall be elected by electors chosen by the states.

Stanley Marcus is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">R. Lanier Anderson III</span> American judge

Robert Lanier Anderson III is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

<i>Nordyke v. King</i> US federal court case

Nordyke v. King was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a ban of firearms on all public property and whether the Second Amendment should be applied to the state and local governments is to be decided. After several hearings at different levels of the federal court system, Alameda County, California promised that gun shows could be held on county property, essentially repudiating its ordinance.

<i>Doe v. Unocal Corp.</i>

Doe v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932, opinion vacated and rehearing en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978, was a lawsuit filed against Unocal for alleged human rights violations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Josephine Staton</span> American judge

Josephine Laura Staton is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

<i>Gill v. Office of Personnel Management</i>

Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the term "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

<i>Baker v. Wade</i> U.S. court case on sodomy

Baker v. Wade 563 F.Supp 1121, rev'd 769 F.2nd 289 cert denied 478 US 1022 (1986) is a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the sodomy law of the state of Texas. Plaintiff Donald Baker contended that the law violated his rights to privacy and equal protection. After a victory at trial, an appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and in the wake of its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick the Supreme Court of the United States refused to review it.

Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Walmart. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a Walmart employee, and others alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Walmart stores.

<i>Sevcik v. Sandoval</i>

Sevcik v. Sandoval is the lead case that successfully challenged Nevada's denial of same-sex marriage as mandated by that state's constitution and statutory law. The plaintiffs' complaint was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on April 10, 2012, on behalf of several couples denied marriage licenses. These couples challenged the denial on the basis of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.

<i>Latta v. Otter</i>

Latta v. Otter is a case initiated in 2013 in U.S. federal court by plaintiffs seeking to prevent the state of Idaho from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs won in U.S. District Court. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard this together with two related cases–Jackson v. Abercrombie, and Sevcik v. Sandoval.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 63</span> 2016 California ballot proposition

The 2016 Proposition 63, titled Firearms and Ammunition Sales, is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot. It requires a background check and California Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition, prohibits possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines over ten rounds, levies fines for failing to report when guns are stolen or lost, establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons, and requires California Department of Justice's participation in the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

<i>D.C. and Maryland v. Trump</i> Lawsuit by Maryland and District of Columbia against Donald Trump concerning emoluments

D.C. and Maryland v. Trump was a lawsuit filed on June 12, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs, the U.S. state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, had violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution by accepting gifts from foreign governments. The lawsuit was filed by D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.

References

  1. 1 2 Major Samuel W. Morris, "A Survey of Military Retirement Benefits", Military Law Review, Volume 177 (2003), p. 142.
  2. ↑ Scott M. McCaleb, "Appeals From District Courts In Little Tucker Act cases", United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: A History : 1990-2002, p. 379.
  3. ↑ Schism v. U.S., 316 F.3d 1259, 1262-63 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
  4. 1 2 3 Noecker, Jeff (April 2011). Callsign: Spectre. ISBN   978-1462004829.
  5. ↑ Noble, Barnes &. "Spectre Gunner: The AC-130 Gunship|NOOK Book". Barnes & Noble. Retrieved 2019-07-04.
  6. ↑ Oscar Albert (2014-06-01), DC Wings Over Vietnam The Missions 5of8 Spookies Spectres and Shadows , retrieved 2019-07-04
  7. ↑ "AC-130U". U.S. Air Force. Retrieved 2019-12-01.
  8. ↑ "Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base", Wikipedia, 2019-09-25, retrieved 2019-12-01
  9. ↑ "The Medal – The Distinguished Flying Cross Society" . Retrieved 2019-12-01.
  10. ↑ "Schism v. United States - Opposition". www.justice.gov. 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2019-12-01.
  11. ↑ Lund, John V. (2004). Military Pay, Benefits, and Retirement. Nova Publishers. ISBN   978-1-59033-877-3.
  12. ↑ "Schism v. United States - Opposition". www.justice.gov. 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2019-07-04.
  13. ↑ W. Stanfield Johnson, "The Federal Circuit's Great Dissenter And Her 'National Policy of Fairness To Contractors'," Public Contract Law Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Winter 2011), p. 310.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.