October Term 2024 · Docket 23-1007
Does ERISA require plaintiffs to prove harm from a service provider transaction?
the sides that brought the case seek to sue Cornell over a service provider deal. Cornell argues the law requires proof of specific harm.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion 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
the sides that brought the case argue Congress codified prohibited transactions in ERISA.
the sides that brought the case claim pleading the mere fact of a transaction defeats dismissal.
Cornell argues that view cannot possibly be right.
Cornell contends the law requires proof of specific injury.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 9-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 9-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 11-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 11-29 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 11-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 53-27 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 53-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 7-47 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 7-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 49-43 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 49-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 53-1 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 53-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 53-9 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 53-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-13
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether ERISA plaintiffs must prove specific harm from a service provider transaction. the sides that brought the case argue the mere fact of the transaction suffices. Cornell argues the law requires proof of injury.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 49-43 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 49-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 22, 2025.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 7-47 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 7-47
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to allow their lawsuit to proceed without proving specific harm.
Cornell wants the Court to require proof of specific injury before a case can proceed.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 49-43 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 49-43
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue that pleading the mere fact of a service provider transaction defeats a motion to dismiss.
Cornell argues that the law requires plaintiffs to identify specific harm caused by the transaction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 49-43 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 49-43
What the justices asked
Justice Thomas asked how the transaction harmed the plan.
Justice Thomas asked what exactly the injury is if the complaint is read as written.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 9-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 9-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 11-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 11-29 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 11-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 53-27 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 53-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 7-47 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 7-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 53-1 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 53-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 53-9 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 53-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-13
Why it matters
This dispute determines whether universities face limitless litigation threats over routine service provider contracts. It defines the scope of ERISA prohibited transaction claims. It affects the cost of defending these cases in federal court.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 49-43 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 49-43
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 11, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 9-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 9-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 11-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 11-29 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 11-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 53-27 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 53-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 7-47 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 7-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 53-1 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 53-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 53-9 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 53-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-13
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 49-43 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 49-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 49-43 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 49-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.