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 Robert A. Long, Jr., on behalf of the Petitioners, this case is an ERISA dispute concerning the Xerox retirement plan.
According to Petitioners, the dispute centers on the interpretation of the plan’s offset provisions.
According to Robert A. Long, Jr., on behalf of the Petitioners, the central issue is whether appellate courts should defer to a plan administrator’s interpretation of plan terms or apply a more independent review.
Background and question before the Court
Petitioners argue that Section 9.6 of the plan provides clear language about the offset, indicating the plan is not silent on the matter.
Respondents contend that the district court’s interpretation should receive deferential review and that multiple reasonable interpretations exist.
The legal question presented is whether courts must defer to a plan administrator’s interpretation when that interpretation is alleged to be erroneous, or whether they may independently interpret the plan.
- [1] 9182938bd36f63de0313-r1-11fff84052336742.pdf, p. 61
- [2] 9182938bd36f63de0313-r1-11fff84052336742.pdf, p. 62
- [3] 9182938bd36f63de0313-r1-11fff84052336742.pdf, p. 22
- [4] 9182938bd36f63de0313-r1-11fff84052336742.pdf, p. 4
- [5] 9182938bd36f63de0313-r1-11fff84052336742.pdf, p. 29
- [6] 9182938bd36f63de0313-r1-11fff84052336742.pdf, p. 60
What each side argues
Petitioners’ Position
According to Petitioners, Section 9.6 of the plan specifies the offset as an annuity payable at age 65, showing the plan is not silent.
According to Petitioners, petitioners rely on Second Circuit precedent (McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet) that a summary plan description need not detail every offset calculation.
According to Mr. Stris, mr. Stris emphasizes that the plan is a defined‑benefits plan, and regulatory definitions support their interpretation.
Respondents’ Position
Respondents argue that the appellate court should give deferential review to the district court’s interpretation, treating it as one reasonable view among many.
According to Respondents, respondents criticize the petitioners’ position as unreasonable, suggesting it would unfairly treat current employees.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Scalia asked whether, when the administrator’s interpretation is found incorrect, the appellate court must remand for a new bid.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg highlighted that the issue is not the method’s adequacy but that participants were not informed in plain language of their entitlement.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito inquired whether, absent deference to the administrator, the district court should simply interpret the plan’s meaning.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia sought clarification on whether the remand discussion referred to the appellate court sending the case back to the district court or the district court sending it to the administrator.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg questioned whether the district court’s action constitutes an interpretation of the plan or a remedy for a wrongful determination.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Matthew D. Roberts, the case addresses whether courts must defer to plan administrators’ interpretations, a principle that safeguards ERISA participants’ rights under trust law.
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.
- 9182938bd36f63de0313-r1-11fff84052336742.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.