Supreme Court · Monday, October 5, 2026
On Tuesday, workers must say what a lagging retirement plan should have done
The File desk · Oct 5, 2026, 10:38 AM UTC
Status
Confirmed as scheduled (question presented and docket, No. 25-498)
On Tuesday the Supreme Court hears Intel employees who say the managers of their retirement plan picked investments that underperformed. The question is what those workers must claim to get past the first stage of the case. Must they point to a “meaningful benchmark,” a comparable fund that did better?
The case is Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, No. 25-498. Argument is Tuesday, Oct. 6. It comes from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 22-16268, decided May 22, 2025. The Supreme Court agreed to hear it on Jan. 16, 2026.
The question presented says the claim “requires alleging a ‘meaningful benchmark.’” The law in the case is the Legal instrument The Employee Retirement Income Security Act requires the people who run a retirement plan to invest with the care a careful, knowledgeable person would use. Tuesday’s case asks what workers must claim when they say the plan’s investments lagged. Legal instrument The Employee Retirement Income Security Act requires the people who run a retirement plan to invest with the care a careful, knowledgeable person would use. Tuesday’s case asks what workers must claim when they say the plan’s investments lagged.ERISA duty of prudence (29 U.S.C. § 1104)
ERISA duty of prudence (29 U.S.C. § 1104)
On Aug. 17 the Court let the solicitor general share argument time. The pages this desk read do not say which side the government supports, how far the investments lagged, or whether these are 401(k) plans.
What is still unknown or disputed
- How much the plan’s investments underperformed. That figure is not on the pages fetched.
- Whether the plans are 401(k)s. That is not on the pages fetched.
- Which side the solicitor general supports.
Primary sources
Every claim in this story is drawn from the documents below. If a fetch failed, that is recorded on the card.
Source 1
Question presented, No. 25-498
Supreme Court of the United States · January 16, 2026
requires alleging a “meaningful benchmark.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/25-00498qp.pdf
Source 2
Docket No. 25-498
Supreme Court of the United States · October 5, 2026
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 6, 2026.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-498.html