Independent newsroom

Wednesday, October 7, 2026

The File

Every claim traces to a primary source. Uncertainty is labeled. Corrections are public.

Supreme Court · Wednesday, October 7, 2026

Justices weigh how workers can sue over a lagging retirement fund, and several want a narrow answer

The File desk · Oct 7, 2026, 10:45 AM UTC

Status

Confirmed from the official transcript of Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, No. 25-498, argued Oct. 6, 2026. The transcript is marked “Official – Subject to Final Review.” Questions are not votes. This story does not predict the ruling.

  • Confirmed

    Argument ran from 10:03 a.m. to 11:04 a.m. Matthew W.H. Wessler argued for the workers. Charles L. McCloud argued for the Intel plan committee. Aimee Brown argued for the United States, supporting Intel.

  • Confirmed

    The legal duty at issue is the

    duty of prudence, .

Intel employees say their retirement-plan managers put too much money into hedge funds and private equity, and that the plan lagged the market. On Tuesday the Supreme Court took up what such workers have to show before a lawsuit can go forward. The lower court said they must point to a “meaningful benchmark,” a truly similar fund that did better. Several justices asked whether the Court should just say yes to that and stop. Justice Barrett said it seemed the workers’ lawyer was agreeing that a meaningful-benchmark standard is appropriate. Justice Kagan asked why the Court would not say what “meaningful” means. The federal government argued on Intel’s side.

The case is Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, No. 25-498. Argument began at 10:03 a.m. and was submitted at 11:04 a.m. Wessler spoke for the workers. McCloud spoke for the plan committee. Brown spoke “for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents.”

Wessler’s opening line: “

’s duty of prudence is inherently flexible.” He called the Ninth Circuit’s “meaningful benchmark requirement” a judge-made bright-line rule. That duty is in . It requires the people who run a retirement plan to act with the care a careful, knowledgeable person would use.

McCloud said the question “is important but narrow.” He said the workers wanted to compare the plan to “things like the S&P 500, which isn’t even a — an investment strategy.”

Justice Thomas said the lower court meant “you can’t compare apples and oranges.” Barrett asked, “But don’t you have to do that to decide if an apple is an apple?” Kagan said “the thing that you need in addition is like another apple.” Barrett later told Wessler, “it seems to me that, really, you are agreeing that a meaningful benchmark standard is appropriate.”

Justice Gorsuch asked whether the Court should “bracket” the question of whether lagging returns can ever show imprudence. McCloud treated that as something the Court could set aside. Justice Kavanaugh asked why performance matters when “half of all the funds are going to underperform.” Chief Justice Roberts worried that a vague rule means “maybe the decision we issue won’t be much help at all.” Justice Jackson asked whether the workers’ real claim, about how the money was split among types of investments, even needs a comparison fund.

Questions from the bench are not votes. This desk did not read the briefs, and it is not predicting the outcome.

What is still unknown or disputed

Primary sources

Every claim in this story is drawn from the documents below. If a fetch failed, that is recorded on the card.

  1. Source 1

    Transcript of oral argument, Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, No. 25-498

    Supreme Court of the United States · October 6, 2026

    AIMEE BROWN, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2026/25-498_febh.pdf