In the 1990 case of Dwight H. Owen v. Helen Owen, the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider issues related to property division in a divorce proceeding. The couple had been married for over thirty years and during that time, they accumulated substantial assets including real estate properties and retirement benefits from Mr. Owen's employment with the federal government as an air traffic controller. Upon their divorce, Mrs. Owen sought half of these assets based on community property laws in California where they resided. The primary issue before the court was whether federal law preempted state community property laws when it came to dividing Mr.Owen's retirement benefits under Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). The Supreme Court ruled that FERS did not preclude application of state community property laws upon dissolution of marriage and thus Mrs.Owen could claim her share from her husband’s pension plan according to Californian law. This decision clarified how federal employee pensions should be treated in divorce proceedings across all states ensuring equitable distribution between spouses regardless if one spouse is a federal employee.

In the dissenting opinion for Dwight H. Owen v. Helen Owen, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling granting alimony to Mrs. Owen was flawed due to its reliance on an outdated and sexist assumption about gender roles in marriage. The justice contended that by awarding alimony based on Mr. Owen's ability to pay rather than Mrs. Owen's need, the court perpetuated a patriarchal system where women are seen as financially dependent on men even after divorce, which is not reflective of modern society or fair legal practice.