October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1021
Does federal ERISA law block state insurance review of HMO claim denials?
Rush Prudential HMO argues federal law preempts state review. Moran argues Illinois law protects her benefits.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — 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
Rush Prudential HMO cites Pilot Life to support exclusive federal remedies.
Moran asserts Illinois section 4-10 protects insured interests without conflict.
The Court asked if the Illinois law allows state court review.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-1
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests if federal ERISA rules override state insurance laws. It concerns the review of health plan claim denials.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 16, 2002.
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 49, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-1
What each side wants
Rush Prudential HMO wants the federal ERISA law to block state court review.
Moran wants the Illinois insurance law to allow state court review.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-1
What each side says
Rush Prudential HMO argues ERISA provides the exclusive remedy for benefit claims.
Moran argues Illinois law does not conflict with federal ERISA rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-1
What the justices asked
Does the Illinois law provide for review in Illinois state courts?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-1
Why it matters
This dispute defines the boundary between federal and state power. It determines who reviews health insurance claim denials. It affects the rights of insured individuals nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-1
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 24, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-1
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 24, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-1
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.