Research checked 27 September 2026 · Official docket
The competing views
ERISA requires fiduciaries to act prudently in managing retirement assets. The dispute is whether an underperformance allegation needs a meaningful comparator to plausibly indicate a flawed investment process, or whether the complaint must be assessed as a whole.
The participants argue that all the alleged facts should be considered together. They say a categorical benchmark rule can shield unusual strategies even when other allegations point to imprudence.
The fiduciaries argue that lower returns alone reveal little: different strategies have different risks and objectives. A sound comparison is needed to infer a flawed process from performance.
Original summaries of submissions, not findings of fact.
Procedural history
- 22 May 2025
Ninth Circuit decision dismissing the challenge
- 16 January 2026
Supreme Court grants review
- 23 April / 2 July 2026
Parties file merits briefs
- 6 October 2026
Oral argument scheduled
Research & materials
Official case docket (opens in new tab)Questions presented (opens in new tab)Petitioners’ filing (opens in new tab)Respondents’ filing (opens in new tab)Court links open official materials; scheduled arguments are not transcripts.
Case updates
Research and argument schedule checked
The docket records argument scheduled for 6 October 2026. This is a dated research update, not a live feed.
Update source (opens in new tab)Oral argument scheduled
The official docket schedules oral argument for 2026-10-06. Dates may change. Docket entry dated 2026-08-04; checked 2026-09-26.
Update source (opens in new tab)Merits brief filed
The official docket records this procedural event. Docket entry dated 2026-07-02; checked 2026-09-26.
Update source (opens in new tab)