The High Court Report

Oral Argument: Cunningham v. Cornell University | Case No. 23-1007 | Date Argued: 1/22/25


Listen Later

Case Info: Cunningham v. Cornell University | Case No. 23-1007 | Date Argued: 1/22/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1) (C), prohibits a plan fiduciary from "engag[ing] in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest." The statute elsewhere defines "party in interest" broadly to include a variety of parties that may contract with or provide services to a plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(14)(B).

The Eighth and Ninth Circuits have applied the Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have, on the other hand, required plaintiffs to allege additional elements to state a claim, because a "literal reading" of 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C) would purportedly produce "results that are inconsistent with ERISA's statutory purpose." Albert v. Oshkosh Corp., 47 F.4th 570, 585 (7th Cir. 2022).

Question Presented: Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision's text.

Holding: To state a claim under §1106(a)(1)(C), a plaintiff need only plausi­bly allege the elements contained in that provision itself, without ad­dressing potential §1108 exemptions.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Advocates:

  • For petitioners: Xiao Wang, Charlottesville, Va.; and Yaira Dubin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
  • For respondents: Nicole A. Saharsky, Washington, D.C.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

...more
View all episodesView all episodes
Download on the App Store

The High Court ReportBy SCOTUS Oral Arguments

  • 4.3
  • 4.3
  • 4.3
  • 4.3
  • 4.3

4.3

6 ratings


More shows like The High Court Report

View all
The NPR Politics Podcast by NPR

The NPR Politics Podcast

25,862 Listeners

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts by Slate Podcasts

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts

3,541 Listeners

Bloomberg Law by Bloomberg

Bloomberg Law

373 Listeners

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke by The Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke

696 Listeners

We the People by National Constitution Center

We the People

1,119 Listeners

The Fifth Column by Kmele Foster, Michael Moynihan, and Matt Welch

The Fifth Column

2,890 Listeners

The Lawfare Podcast by The Lawfare Institute

The Lawfare Podcast

6,297 Listeners

The Daily by The New York Times

The Daily

112,597 Listeners

Stay Tuned with Preet by Preet Bharara

Stay Tuned with Preet

32,367 Listeners

Today, Explained by Vox

Today, Explained

10,241 Listeners

Interesting Times with Ross Douthat by New York Times Opinion

Interesting Times with Ross Douthat

7,067 Listeners

Strict Scrutiny by Crooked Media

Strict Scrutiny

5,772 Listeners

Advisory Opinions by The Dispatch

Advisory Opinions

3,883 Listeners

The Ezra Klein Show by New York Times Opinion

The Ezra Klein Show

16,097 Listeners

Divided Argument by Will Baude, Dan Epps

Divided Argument

738 Listeners