Hughes v. Northwestern Univ.

Decided January 24, 2022. Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court.

Docket 19-1401 · 595 U.S. 170 · Cited 140 times

Determining whether plan participants state plausible claims against plan fiduciaries for violations of ERISA’s duty of prudence requires a context-specific inquiry of the fiduciaries’ continuing duty to monitor investments and to remove imprudent ones as articulated in Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 575 U. S. 523; the Seventh Circuit erred in relying on the participants’ ultimate choice over their investments to excuse allegedly imprudent decisions by respondents.

The Court’s statement of the holding, from the opinion’s syllabus. The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court — read the official opinion for authority.

Read the official opinion (PDF, supremecourt.gov) (opens primary source in a new tab)

Sonia Sotomayor’s profile · All opinions since October Term 2017 · The Supreme Court

Source: Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinions (2022). Citation count from the Free Law Project’s CourtListener bulk data. Data last verified 2026-07-02. Informational only; verify against the primary source before relying. Not a consumer report (FCRA).