Hughes v. Northwestern Univ.
Decided January 24, 2022. Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court.
Docket 19-1401 · 595 U.S. 170 (2022) · Cited 140 times
Holding
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.
Precedents cited
Supreme Court decisions this opinion relies on, ordered by how often it cites each. Cases in our collection link through; others are named.
- Tibble v. Edison Int'l · 575 U.S. 523 (2015)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal · 556 U.S. 662 (2009)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · 550 U.S. 544 (2007)
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · 200 U.S. 321 (1906)
Official text
Read the official opinion (PDF, supremecourt.gov)
Explore from here
Sonia Sotomayor’s profile · All Supreme Court opinions · 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 2026-08-15. Informational only; verify against the primary source before relying. Not a consumer report (FCRA).