October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1529
Does ERISA preempt Washington's divorce revocation statute?
the sides that brought the case argue Washington law conflicts with federal employee benefit rules. the opposing sides claim the state statute remains valid.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
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.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 5-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 8, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What each side says
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What the justices asked
Does the state statute relate to employee benefit plans? Does it conflict with specific ERISA provisions?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 5-7
Why it matters
This dispute defines the boundary between state and federal law. It affects how divorce impacts employee benefits. It clarifies the scope of ERISA preemption.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 5-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.