Whether federal law preempts state court enforcement of a marital settlement agreement that requires a veteran to dispossess federally protected disability benefits in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 5301

No question identified. : PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE HIS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT Submitted To: The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice, Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and including the State of Illinois. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c) and Supreme Court Rule 13.5, Petitioner, George M. Tronsrue, for good cause, respectfully submits this application for an extension of 60 days to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Illinois Supreme Court in the above-captioned case. Petitioner is seeking review of a May 22, 2025, decision by the Supreme Court of Illinois, see In re Tronsrue, 2025 IL 130596, affirming the judgment of the Illinois Court of Appeals, see In re Marriage of Tronsrue, 2024 IL App (3d) 220125, 476 Ill. Dec. 1, 239 N.E.38d 1199 (2024), concerning Petitioner’s federal preemption arguments. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Petitioner was required to abide by a marital settlement agreement which ultimately forced him to use federal veterans’ benefits to satisfy a marital property division, even though the use of such funds for property divisions in state court divorce proceedings is preempted by federal law and prohibited by the plain language of 38 U.S.C. § 5301. The Illinois Supreme Court’s opinion and order affirming the judgments of the Illinois Court of Appeals, and the decisions of the latter court, are attached to this application as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. The petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court from the Illinois Supreme Court’s May 22, 2025, opinion and order is due on or before Wednesday, August 20, 2025. Pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court, Rules 13.5 and 22, Petitioner is filing this application requesting an extension on or before a date 10 days prior to Wednesday, August 20, 2025. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257, this Court has jurisdiction over petitions for a writ of certiorari from final orders and judgments of the highest court of a state that disposes of all issues and parties. Under § 1257, the Court can review final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of the United States. Principal among the issues raised by Petitioner was that the Illinois Supreme Court and the lower courts erred in its interpretation and application of 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA)) and 38 U.S.C. § 5301, particularly as those statutes relate to the division of Petitioner’s protected federal retirement and disability benefits pursuant to a divorce settlement agreement. The Circuit Court’s and Court of Appeals’ interpretations caused Petitioner to be divested of military benefits that are protected by federal law, including, but not limited to, 10 U.S.C. § 1408 and 38 U.S.C. § 5301. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decisions, thereby effectuating a violation of these provisions. (Attachment 1). This Court has jurisdiction over Petitioner’s Application and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1257, due to the latter court’s May 22, 2025, opinion as that was the final order of the state’s highest court and a final disposition of the matter. SUMMARY OF THE CASE In Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214, 221-22; 187 S. Ct. 1400 (2017), this Court ruled that federal law preempted state law based on this Court’s decisions in Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989), and thus, state courts could not force veterans to use their federal veterans’ benefits without specific federal statutory authorization to do so. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that while the