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
During oral argument, Justice Kagan asked a question about the case.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether a fiduciary may consider the impact of stopping stock purchases on beneficiaries.
Justice Breyer asked about the possibility of turning the trusteeship over to a person without the conflicted knowledge.
According to United States, an amicus brief submitted by the United States noted that Section 1104 requires operating the plan for its exclusive purpose.
Background and question before the Court
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the central issue concerned whether a fiduciary can consider the impact of a decision to stop buying stock on the beneficiaries.
According to Justice Breyer, another issue raised was whether the trusteeship should be transferred to a person without the conflicted knowledge.
What each side argues
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked a question (text incomplete).
Chief Justice Roberts asked: “Are they allowed to take into account the impact of a decision to stop buying on the beneficiaries? … Should he say, I shouldn't buy any more because I think it's going to go down some more? Or should he say, I should keep buying because otherwise all of the holdings … will go down?”
Justice Breyer asked: “The union brief says the thing to do in that situation is, without saying anything, turn the trusteeship over to a person who doesn't have that knowledge. That takes care of the problem.”
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.
- 3e092bf2ee7bb739376e-r1-ee8a6daae86bf967.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.