Hughes v. Northwestern University, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Seventh Circuit erred in relying on the participants' ultimate choice over their investments to excuse allegedly imprudent decisions by respondents. Determining whether petitioners state plausible claims against plan fiduciaries for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974's duty of prudence requires a context-specific inquiry of the fiduciaries’ continuing duty to monitor investments and to remove imprudent ones.[1][2]
| Hughes v. Northwestern University | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided January 24, 2022 | |
| Full case name | Hughes v. Northwestern University |
| Docket no. | 19-1401 |
| Citations | 595 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Holding | |
| The Seventh Circuit erred in relying on the participants' ultimate choice over their investments to excuse allegedly imprudent decisions by respondents. Determining whether petitioners state plausible claims against plan fiduciaries for violations of ERISA's duty of prudence requires a context-specific inquiry of the fiduciaries’ continuing duty to monitor investments and to remove imprudent ones. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined by unanimous |
| Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 | |
References
editExternal links
edit- Text of Hughes v. Northwestern University, No. 19-1401, 595 U.S. ___ (2022) is available from: Justia
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain. "[T]he Court is unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court." Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |