Supreme Court Rules On Retirement Funds – In 8-0 Decision, They Just Held Sponsors’ Feet To The Fire

What’s Happening:

The Supreme Court is busy doing work on behalf of the American people. The mainstream media might not cover all of it, but it needs to be discussed. One particular case was brought before the court and it touched on Americans’ ability to save up for retirement.

A group took an employer to court, claiming their 401(k) policy confused employees. On top of that, they did not explain that some of the options included high fees that put a financial burden on investors.

It seems they didn’t want to give employees all the information they needed to make the best decision. So, the Supreme Court, in an 8-0 ruling, put their feet to the fire.

From JD Supra:

On January 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hughes v. Northwestern University, No. 1401, holding that an ERISA fiduciary that offers some prudent investment options in a retirement plan is not thereby categorically protected against a claim that other options are imprudent…

The Court held that offering some prudent investment options does not categorically bar a claim alleging that other options are imprudent or that the selection of options as a whole is imprudent. Rather, the Court clarified, ERISA’s duty of prudence is a “context-specific inquiry,” which requires plan administrators to “monitor” all its fund offerings and “remove” the “imprudent ones.”

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of employees, deciding that retirement plan providers are not immune from claims against what they offer. The court stated that just because the provider offered a few “prudent” investment options does not mean they can get away with offering “imprudent” offers. In this case, investment plans with high fees.

This is an important case because it once again debunks the left’s claims about the court. Democrats have been demanding to pack the court with more liberal justices, claiming the 6-3 conservative majority was “off-balance.” Of course, to them, anything that isn’t a liberal majority is off-balance.

But the court was united in an 8-0 decision (Justice Barrett was not involved in this case), proving that the court’s liberal and conservative wings can cooperate and even provided a unanimous decision.

The other good news is that the court refused to protect larger institutions over the interests of individual Americans. It’s far too common for lawmakers to set policy that ignores the needs of Americans, but benefits corporate lobbyists and special interests.

But the Supreme Court refused to bow to their wills this time, considering Americans first.

Key Takeaways:

• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of employees over retirement providers.
• The ruling was 8-0, with conservative and liberal justices in agreement.
• This comes as liberals criticize the court for being off-balance.

Source: JD Supra