Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
The ERISA Industry Committee v. City of Seattle, Washington
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 20-35472 · judgment March 17, 2021
Before the decision, about 3.6× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition, and down for a state or local-government respondent.
Question presented
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts all state and local laws that “relate to” employee-benefit plans covered by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. §1144(a). This broad preemption provision encourages employers to offer employee benefit plans by eliminating the costs and complications of tailoring plans to the local policy preferences of every jurisdiction in which they operate. State and local governments, however, have tried to circumvent ERISA preemption by enacting what are commonly called “play-or-pay” laws. These laws unapologetically dictate the content of ERISA plans, but they purport to avoid preemption by deeming employers in compliance if, instead of altering their ERISA plans, they cut a check in the same amount directly to their employees or the local government. The Seattle ordinance here is just such a law; it mandates that primarily out-of-state employers in the hotel sector make specified monthly healthcare expenditures on behalf of their covered local employees. Employers can comply by creating new ERISA plans, increasing contributions to their existing ERISA plans, or making payments directly to their covered employees. In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed an entrenched circuit split by holding that the direct-payment option saves Seattle’s employee-benefits law from preemption. The question presented is: Whether state and local play-or-pay laws that require employers to make minimum monthly healthcare expenditures for their covered employees relate to ERISA plans and are thus preempted by ERISA.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Paul D. Clement
Clement & Murphy, PLLC
For respondent
Peter K. Stris
Stris and Maher LLP
Proceedings
- Nov 21 2022Petition DENIED.
- Nov 02 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/18/2022.
- Nov 02 2022Supplemental brief of petitioner The ERISA Industry Committee filed. (Distributed)
- Oct 19 2022Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
- May 31 2022The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
- May 10 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/26/2022.
- May 10 2022Reply of petitioner The ERISA Industry Committee filed. (Distributed)
- Apr 25 2022Brief of respondent City of Seattle in opposition filed.
- Mar 08 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 25, 2022.
- Mar 04 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 25, 2022 to April 25, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 23 2022Response Requested. (Due March 25, 2022)
- Feb 18 2022Brief amici curiae of Restaurant Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Feb 18 2022Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)
- Feb 18 2022Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Feb 18 2022Brief amici curiae of American Benefits Council, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Feb 18 2022Brief amici curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Feb 16 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/4/2022.
- Feb 11 2022Amicus brief of American Hotel and Lodging Association, et al. not accepted for filing. (February 14, 2022) (Corrected efiling to be submitted)
- Feb 11 2022Brief amici curiae of American Hotel and Lodging Association, et al. filed.(2/15/2022) (Distributed)
- Feb 04 2022Letter from counsel for petitioner submitted.
- Jan 28 2022Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, The ERISA Industry Committee
- Jan 28 2022Waiver of right of respondent City of Seattle to respond filed.
- Jan 14 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 18, 2022)
- Oct 22 2021Application (21A104) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until January 14, 2022.
- Oct 20 2021Application (21A104) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 30, 2021 to January 14, 2022, submitted to Justice Kagan.