Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee

Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, No. 25-498 Argued on Oct 06 2026. For petitioners: Matthew W.H. Wessler, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Charles L. McCloud, Washington, D. C.; and Aimee Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) Question Presented: Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a plan fiduciary is subject to a "[p]rudent man standard of care," which requires the fiduciary to "discharge his duties with respect to a plan" with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that a prudent person "acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use." 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a) (1)). As this Court has recognized, a court's inquiry into whether a plaintiff has adequately alleged that a fiduciary breached ERISA's duty of prudence "will necessarily be context specific" because the content of that duty "turns on 'the circumstances ... prevailing' at the time the fiduciary acts." Fifth Third Bancorp. v. Dudenhoeffer , 573 U.S. 409, 425 (2014) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B)). As a result, "categorical" pleading rules are "inconsistent with the context-specific inquiry that ERISA requires." Hughes v. Nw. Univ ., 595 U.S.170, 173 (2022). The question presented is: Whether, for claims predicated on fund underperformance, pleading that an ERISA fiduciary failed to use the requisite "care, skill, prudence, or diligence" under the circumstances and thus breached ERISA's duty of prudence when investing plan assets requires alleging a "meaningful benchmark." Oral Argument Links: SCOTUS Oral Argument Page Transcript PDF Docket Links: SCOTUS Docket Page Question Presented Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.) Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.) Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.) Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.) Merits Stage Brief of the United States (Green Br.) Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.) Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.) Chapters: (00:00:00) Case Call (00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF MATTHEW W.H. WESSLER (00:33:51) ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHARLES L. McCLOUD (00:50:07) ORAL ARGUMENT OF AIMEE BROWN (00:59:19) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF MATTHEW W.H. WESSLER Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits: Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity. Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website. Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y