{"argument_date":"2000-11-08T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2000-11-08T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","paragraphs":["Mr. Kilberg argued the state law strikes at ERISA's core. He claimed it purports to revoke designations upon divorce.","Ms. Mcdowell argued the statute relates to employee benefit plans. She claimed it conflicts with specific ERISA provisions.","Mr. Goldstein argued the conflict notion is mistaken. He explained what the statute does and why."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 16, lines 37-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 15-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 53, lines 5-7"}]}],"caption":"Egelhoff v. Egelhoff","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.780461Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"the sides that brought the case argue Washington law conflicts with federal employee benefit rules. the opposing sides claim the state statute remains valid.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 16, lines 37-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 15-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2000-11-08T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/99-1529.html","primary_docket":"99-1529","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T18:24:06.446395Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["This case tests if federal law overrides a state rule. The rule cancels beneficiary designations after divorce. the sides that brought the case say this violates ERISA. the opposing sides say the state law stands."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 16, lines 37-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 15-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 8, 2000."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["the sides that brought the case want the state law struck down. They seek a federal preemption victory.","the opposing sides want the state law upheld. They seek to keep the revocation rule."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 16, lines 37-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 15-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["the sides that brought the case argue the state law conflicts with ERISA. They cite express and conflict preemption grounds.","the opposing sides argue the state law does not conflict. They assert the statute is not preempted."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 16, lines 37-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 15-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Does the state statute relate to employee benefit plans? Does it conflict with specific ERISA provisions?"],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 53, lines 5-7"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This dispute defines the boundary between state and federal law. It affects how divorce impacts employee benefits. It clarifies the scope of ERISA preemption."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 16, lines 37-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 15-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 53, lines 5-7"}]}],"slug":"2000-99-1529-egelhoff-v-egelhoff","term":"2000","title":"Does ERISA preempt Washington's divorce revocation statute?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 16, lines 37-19"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 15-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1529.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}