Issue: (1) Whether, under Section 1104(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a fiduciary of a plan that invests in qualified employer securities who knows, or should have known, that it is imprudent to invest in the employer’s securities is permitted to take no steps to protect plan participants and beneficiaries unless the employer is in a “dire situation” or near bankruptcy; and (2) whether, under Section 1104(a)(1)(B), a complaint by a plan participant against a fiduciary of such a plan need only plead facts making plausible the conclusion that the fiduciary failed to act with “care, skill, prudence, and diligence,” or whether instead the complaint must plead facts making plausible the conclusion that the fiduciary knew, or should have known, that the employer was in a “dire situation” or near bankruptcy.
On Monday, the justices met for their September 26 conference. They issued orders from this conference on Thursday. The court granted certiorari in nine cases, consolidating two. The October sitting will begin on October 3; the argument calendar for that sitting is available on the court's website.
Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami (1) Whether, by limiting suit to “aggrieved person[s],” Congress required that a Fair Housing Act plaintiff plead more than just Article III injury-in-fact; and (2) whether proximate cause requires more than just the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through some theoretical chain of contingencies.
Moore v. Texas (1) Whether it violates the Eighth Amendment and this Court’s decisions in Hall v. Florida and Atkins v. Virginia to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability, and require the use of outdated medical standards, in determining whether an individual may be executed.
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado Whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
BeavEx Inc. v. Costello Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts generally-applicable state laws that force motor carriers to treat and pay all drivers as “employees” rather than as independent contractors.