SCOTUS to Hear ERISA “Meaningful Benchmark” Question in Intel Fund Case on October 6
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, according to the October 2026 argument calendar released by the Court on August 4. The case asks whether an ERISA plaintiff alleging that a plan fiduciary imprudently retained an underperforming investment must plead a “meaningful benchmark” against which the fund’s performance can be measured.
The question presented, as framed in the petition granted January 16, 2026, is whether ERISA claims predicated on fund underperformance require alleging a meaningful benchmark in order to state that a fiduciary breached the statute’s duty of prudence under 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1). The statute holds a plan fiduciary to a prudent man standard of care, requiring the care, skill, prudence, and diligence that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use.
The case reaches the Court from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which decided the matter on May 22, 2025, with its opinion reported at 137 F.4th 1015. The Supreme Court docket in No. 25-498 shows the petition was filed October 20, 2025, distributed for the January 9, 2026 conference, redistributed for the conference of January 16, and granted that day. The docket entry setting the argument is dated August 4, 2026.
What a Meaningful Benchmark Requirement Would Demand
The dispute concerns how much comparative detail an ERISA plaintiff must offer at the pleading stage when the theory of imprudence is that a plan fiduciary kept participants in an underperforming investment option. The question presented asks whether stating such a claim requires identifying a meaningful benchmark against which the challenged fund’s performance can be measured.
The question presented recites two of the Court’s prior statements on the prudence inquiry. In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014), the Court said the content of the duty turns on the circumstances prevailing at the time the fiduciary acts, and that whether a plaintiff has adequately alleged a breach is necessarily context specific. In Hughes v. Nw. Univ., 595 U.S. 170 (2022), it said categorical pleading rules are inconsistent with the context-specific inquiry ERISA requires.
The Solicitor General Wants Argument Time
Petitioners filed their merits brief on April 23, 2026, after two extensions. Respondents filed on July 2, 2026, with a corrected version accepted July 10. Petitioners filed their reply on August 3, the day before the Court set the argument date.
Amicus briefs arrived in two waves. Between April 27 and April 30, following the petitioners’ brief, the docket records filings from AARP, the American Association for Justice, Americans for Financial Reform, a group of investment law scholars, and Phyllis C. Borzi and others. A second wave landed on July 9, the week after the respondents’ brief, from the United States, the American Investment Council, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the Investment Company Institute, the American Benefits Council, and the National Association of Manufacturers.
The Solicitor General moved on July 9 for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument. The docket records no ruling on that motion.
Where Intel Falls in the October Sitting
The Court will hear seven cases over five days in the October sitting, according to SCOTUSblog. The term opens Monday, October 5, with Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) v. Commissioners of Boulder County, followed that same day by Johnson v. United States Congress, which addresses whether federal district courts may hear constitutional challenges to laws affecting veterans’ benefits.
Anderson v. Intel is the only case set for Tuesday, October 6. Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan follows on October 7. After the October 12 legal holiday, the sitting resumes October 13 with Beaird v. United States, on whether a 1993 decision about Sentencing Guidelines commentary remains good law, and Genalo v. Black. It closes October 14 with Salazar v. Paramount Global, a Video Privacy Protection Act case.
The Court convenes at 10 a.m. on each argument day.
