October Term 2002 · Docket 00-1471
Do Kentucky insurance laws override federal ERISA rules?
Insurers argue Kentucky statutes regulate their business. Patients claim federal law preempts state rules.
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. Eccles stated Congress created a federal regulatory structure.
Ms. Johnson argued Kentucky statutes regulate the insurance industry.
Mr. Feldman responded to a question about risk spreading.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether state insurance laws conflict with federal employee benefit rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 19-27
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 14, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want Kentucky laws to apply to their plans.
the opposing sides want federal ERISA rules to control the dispute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 19-27
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue Kentucky statutes target the insurance industry directly.
the opposing sides argue federal law creates a uniform regulatory structure.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 19-27
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked for an example of risk spreading.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-21
Why it matters
The outcome defines the boundary between state and federal insurance power.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 19-27
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 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-21
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 26, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 19-27
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.