This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Mr. Eccles, the petitioner argues that the Kentucky law at issue may be considered a health care law that does not fall within ERISA’s Savings Clause because it regulates contracts between providers and HMOs.
According to Ms. Johnson, the petitioner also contends that Kentucky’s “any willing provider” statutes regulate insurance because they are solely directed at the insurance industry.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument began at 11:07 a.m. on the scheduled date.
According to Justice, justices asked whether the laws at issue have become fairly common.
Justice Breyer asked if the case was an antitrust case.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the law should be called a health care law.
According to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), justices questioned why the propositions about spreading risk were not true here as they were in Royal Drug.
According to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), justices expressed concern about the “common sense” test for insurance regulation.
According to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), justices asked how the arrangement actually spreads risk.
- [1] e606918c0f45cb4af7fd-r1-630ee61948e03042.pdf, p. 1
- [2] e606918c0f45cb4af7fd-r1-630ee61948e03042.pdf, p. 4
- [3] e606918c0f45cb4af7fd-r1-630ee61948e03042.pdf, p. 20
- [4] e606918c0f45cb4af7fd-r1-630ee61948e03042.pdf, p. 22
- [5] e606918c0f45cb4af7fd-r1-630ee61948e03042.pdf, p. 36
- [6] e606918c0f45cb4af7fd-r1-630ee61948e03042.pdf, p. 37
- [7] e606918c0f45cb4af7fd-r1-630ee61948e03042.pdf, p. 38
What each side argues
Petitioner (Kentucky Association of Health Plans, Inc.)
According to Mr. Eccles, the Kentucky law at issue may be considered a health care law that does not fall within ERISA’s Savings Clause because it regulates contracts between providers and HMOs.
According to Ms. Johnson, Kentucky’s “any willing provider” statutes regulate insurance because they are solely directed at the insurance industry.
Respondent (Janie A. Miller, Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Insurance)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 11:07 a.m. on the scheduled date.
The United States, as amicus curiae, presented arguments supporting the respondent, referencing an example from its brief.
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), the amicus argued that the law spreads risk by conditioning coverage on the use of in‑network providers.
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), the amicus further explained that the arrangement does affect risk, though it is a condition on that risk.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- e606918c0f45cb4af7fd-r1-630ee61948e03042.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.