Document: 532 U.S. 141121 S.Ct. 1322149 L.Ed.2d 264 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.DONNA RAE EGELHOFF, PETITIONERv.SAMANTHA a minor, by and through her natural parent KATE BREINER, DAVID EGELHOFF No. 99-1529. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued November 8, 2000 Decided March 21, 2001 Syllabus While David A. Egelhoff was married petitioner, he designated as beneficiary life insurance policy pension plan provided his employer governed Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (ERISA). Shortly after petitioner Mr. divorced, died intestate. Respondents, Egelhoff's children previous marriage, filed separate suits against state court recover proceeds benefits. They relied on Washington statute provides designation spouse nonprobate asset-defined include employee benefit plan-is revoked automatically upon divorce. Respondents argued absence qualified named beneficiary, would pass them statutory heirs under law. The trial courts concluded both should administered accordance with ERISA, granted summary judgment cases. Appeals consolidated cases reversed, concluding not pre-empted ERISA. State affirmed, holding statute, although applicable plans, does "refe[r] to" have "connection with" an ERISA compel pre-emption statute. Held: has connection plans therefore expressly pre-empted. Pp. 4-10. (a) ERISA's section, 29 U.S.C. 1144(a), states "shall supersede all laws insofar they now hereafter relate plan" covered A law relates "if it reference such plan." Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 85, 97. To determine whether there forbidden connection, looks objectives guide scope Congress understood survive, well nature law's effect plans. California Div. Labor Standards Enforcement Dillingham Constr., N. A., 519 316, 325. Applying this framework, impermissible binds administrators particular choice rules for determining status. Administrators must pay benefits beneficiaries chosen law, rather than those identified documents. thus implicates area core concern, running counter commands shall "specify basis which payments from plan," 1102(b)(4), fiduciary administer "in documents instruments governing 1104(a)(1)(D). also prohibited because interferes nationally uniform administration. cannot make simply identifying specified documents, but familiarize themselves statutes so can beneficiary's status been "revoked" operation burden exacerbated choice-of-law problems confront administrator when employer, participant, participant's former live different States. Although protection who no actual knowledge divorce, still face risk might later find did knowledge. If instead decide await results litigation among putative paying benefits, will transfer costs delay uncertainty. Requiring master relevant 50 contend undermine congressional goal minimizing their administrative financial burdens. Differing regulations affecting plan's system processing claims impose precisely intended avoid. Fort Halifax Packing Co. Coyne, 482 1, 10. 4-8. (b) Respondents' reasons why ordinary analysis apply here-that allows employers opt out; involves areas traditional regulation; if pre-empts pre-empt various providing murdering heir entitled receive property result killing-are rejected. 8-10. 139 Wash. 2d 557, 989 P.2d 80, reversed remanded. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO WASHINGTON Thomas, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, Breyer, dissenting Stevens, Opinion Justice Thomas Court. 1 asset We asked (ERISA), 88 Stat. 832, 1001 et seq., extent applies hold does. 2 * Petitioner Donna Rae Egelhoff. employed Boeing Company, him plan. Both were wife both. In April 1994, Egelhoffs divorced. Just over two months later, intestate following automobile accident. At time, Mrs. remained listed proceeds, totaling $46,000, paid her. 3 Samantha Egelhoff, sued proceeds. provides: 4 "If marriage dissolved invalidated, provision prior event payment at death decedent's interest favor granting power revoked. affected section interpreted, passes, failed survive decedent, having time entry decree dissolution declaration invalidity." Rev. Code 11.07.010(2)(a) (1994). 5 That "all assets, wherever situated, held superior 11.07.010(1). It defines "nonprobate asset" "a policy, plan, annuity similar contract, individual retirement account." 11.07.010(5)(a). 6 disqualified heirs. action, respondents again 7 courts, "should accordance" App. Pet. Cert. 46a, 48a. reversed. re Estate 93 314, 968 924 (1998). Id., 317, P.2d, 925. Ibid. 8 affirmed. 80 (1999). "employee plan[s]," require pre-emption, "does immediately exclusively nor existence essential statute." 574, 89. lacks pre-emption. 576, 90. emphasized alter itself, administrator's duties, requirements administration." 575, Nor, concluded, conflict specific including antialienation provision, 1056(d)(1), operate divert distribution terms documents," merely alters "the underlying circumstances scheme [the] applied." 2d, 578, 91. 9 Courts disagreed about like Compare, e.g., Manning Hayes, 212 F.3d 866 (CA5 2000) (finding pre-emption), cert. pending, 00-265, Metropolitan Life Ins. Hanslip, 939 F.2d 904 (CA10 1991) (same), with, Emard Hughes Aircraft Co., 153 949 (CA9 1998) (same). resolve conflict, we certiorari. 530 1242 (2000). II 10 argues falls within express principles Because conclude address only first argument. 11 observed repeatedly broadly worded "clearly expansive." New York Conference Blue Cross & Shield Plans Travelers 514 645, 655 (1995); see, Morales Trans World Airlines, 504 374, 384 (1992) (listing described broad terms). But same recognized term "relate taken "to extend furthest stretch its indeterminacy," else "for practical purposes never run course." Travelers, supra, 655. 12 97 (1983). focuses part inquiry. Acknowledging scarcely more restrictive to," cautioned "uncritical literalism" preemption turn "infinite connections." 656. Instead, look 'the survive,' plans." 325 (1997), quoting 656 (citation omitted). 13 agree. concern. particular, runs 1104(a)(1)(D), making "beneficiary" "designated 1002(8).1 words, unlike generally regulating "areas where nothing say," Dillingham, U.S., 330, upheld notwithstanding incidental ibid., governs central matter 14 One principal goals enable establish scheme, set standard procedures disbursement benefits." (1987). Uniformity impossible, however, legal obligations 15 issue here poses threat. Plan documents.2 Instead And context located one State, participant lives another, third. situation, conflicting obligations. 16 sure, protects liability unless "actual invalidation marriage," 11.07.010(3)(a) (1994), permits refuse until dispute resolved, 11.07.010(3)(b). do had knowledge" uncertainty.3 "minimiz[ing] burden[s]" administrators-burdens ultimately borne beneficiaries. Ingersoll-Rand McClendon, 498 133, 142 (1990). 17 recognize create some potential lack uniformity. differing "system benefits" "precisely avoid." Halifax, noted, directly conflicts administered, paid, III 18 suggest several here. First, observe out. According respondents, neither regulates administration impairs uniformity "[t]he instrument disposition otherwise." 11.07.010(2)(b)(i) believe saved is, least sense, default rule. 19 Even though statute's cancellation private itself trumped language "dictate choice[s] facing plans" respect matters 334. either follow Washington's indicate it. less regulation ways complying Of course, simple noncompliance options available administrators. Their timing, i.e., bear compliance ex post, dictates (and contravention documents), ante, amending plan.4 20 emphasize opt-out makes burdensome mandatory. true enough, remains hardly trivial. enough out maintain familiarity update necessary satisfy other, statutes. attentive changes interpretations courts. "tailoring conduct peculiarities each jurisdiction" exactly seeks eliminate. Ingersoll-Rand, 142. 21 Second, family probate regulation. There indeed presumption See, Hisquierdo Hisquierdo, 439 572, 581 (1979). overcome where, here, clear desire Accordingly, hesitated Boggs Boggs, 520 833 (1997) (holding community permitting testamentary spouse's benefits). 22 Finally, argue then killing. Cal. Prob. Ann. 250-259 (West 1991 Supp. 2000); 755 Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 755, 5/2-6 context, these "slayer" could revoke someone murdered participant. Those us, issue. note, principle statutes-which adopted nearly every State-is established long historical pedigree predating Riggs Palmer, 115 Y. 506, E. 188 (1889). nationwide, interference aims debatable. 23 24 case remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 25 ordered. NOTES: course escape between (which beneficiary) requires else) calling "invalidation" observing silent occur dissent employs just approach. See 3-4 (opinion J.). Reading statement ambiguous metastatement enables avoid kinds seemingly contradictory texts. Suppose, example, required Governor Washington. seems ERISA), inconsistency disappears calls alternate designations. After all, actually says invalidated Governor. approach exploits logical inability text contain complete instructions own interpretation. vice-or perhaps virtue, depending one's point view-of draining meaning. case, dictated consistent "Donna R. Wife" once "there person 'Donna Wife'; definitionally ceased exist." Brief 44 (emphasis original); see (Breyer, dissenting). effect, ask us infer what meant filled form my wife," new person-'Donna spouse,' " 44. mention, below "Beneficiary" line form, printed reads, "First Name [space] Middle Initial Last Relationship." Appendix post. Rather impute unnatural absurd) literalism suggested information form. happenstance "Relationship" name not, think, evince intent designate person." observes resolving himself let parties settle matter. 6. observation presents example how uncertainty passed beneficiaries, thereby thwarting objective efficient Cf. Contrary dissent's suggestion resolution depends view federalism, 8-9, called interpret "shall" command way according change very supposed follow. 26 whom Ginsburg joins, concurring. 27 I join since pre-emptive (ERISA) assuredly triggered contradicts As notes, documents." Ante, 7. remain unsure (as think lower everyone be) triggers which-if interpreted anything our jurisprudence concerning field pre-emption-has discernible content pick up ripple pond, producing "that sensible intended." 336 (Scalia, concurring). persist bring coherence area, give plausible precise content, interpreting clause jurisprudence. ibid. 28 Stevens dissenting. Like normal covers non-ERISA alike. (concurring opinion). Our recent De Buono NYSA-ILA Medical Clinical Services Fund, 806, 812-813 (rejecting literal interpretation clause); 334 (narrowly (1995) ("go[ing] beyond unhelpful [of clause] frustrating difficulty defining key term, look[ing] guide"). 833, 841 (relying clause). fear failure endorse "new approach" explicitly, concurring), continue produce "avalanche litigation," Buono, 809, n. struggle "discernible content," threatening intended. 30 agree Scalia majority, leads conclusion No claim entire inheritance-though speaking. Neither direct nowhere other. (claiming "direc[t] conflic[t]" statute). cf. 31 correctly points contrary. Rather, sets forth rule documentary silence. specifies A's "as if" "former spouse" first-unless "instrument (1994) added). state-law interpretation, designed carry out, employee's likely intention revealed 32 contradiction investment "beneficiary designation" "invalid," "benefits paid" "surviving spouse," surviving "children equal shares." 40. occurs invalid. fills gaps, say nothing. Thus, designation-here wife" invalid longer wife. Appendix, infra. adds instance funds children, 33 Court's "direct conflict" rests "administrators 5. mean "identified anywhere "identified" recipients initial become became divorce silent. 34 refer given become, sense background inheritance issue, say, written potentially ambiguous, near, in, correct space, refers missing presumed dead, incompetent, entity perpetuities prohibiting murderer benefiting crime. Why want ERISA-related federal deal problems? Regardless, explicit forbids reading document light principles. event, explicitly foresee specify invalidating circumstances. Supra, 3. fill blank can- possibly 35 majority denies suggests 5, 1. nonetheless open question, namely, (here explicitly) valid question genuine important (unlike imaginary majority's footnote). answer describe host special (e.g., mental incompetence, intoxication, names, etc.). questions careful examination basic policies. 4-5; infra, 5-8. short-circuit inquiry announcing none exists. 36 complains restricts choices "two." 8. difficult take complaint seriously. gives (1) comply (2) What be? asks choose intends Quite obviously, possible, 'impossible,' Geier American Honda Motor 529 861, 873 37 serious 'stands obstacle accomplishment execution full Congress.' (quoting Hines Davidowitz, 312 52, 67 (1941)). answering remember strong law-a "field regulation," 'clear manifest purpose Congress,' Rice Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 218, 230 (1947)), 'major damage' substantial' interests," (1979) Yazell, 382 341, 352 (1966)). seriously clearly resolved us. damage interests identifies consists added imposes 38 "interferes administration" requiring "familiarize statutes." 6-7. routine amounts due garnishment, Mackey Lanier Collection Agency Service, 486 825, 838 (1988), "spouse," qualifies "child," legally dead. "familiarizing burden" somehow overwhelming, easily revocation themselves, stating apply. "burden" reduces one-time requirement fall primarily few draft model many them. So meager justify pre-empting enjoys 39 fears determinations Whether problem "major" practice, resolves setting whereby administrator, responsible 11.07.010(3)(b)(i)-(ii) (stating "without liability, "[a]ll interested persons claiming consented writing transfer" authorized directed proper jurisdiction"); 11.07.010(3)(c) (plan condition security recipient indemnify costs); expressing documents). 40 previously fact "impose[s] burde[n] necessarily 815; Mackey, 831 (upholding garnishment "benefit subjected incur substantial burdens"). Precisely, distinguishes 'myriad laws' kind plans? 815 668). 41 Indeed, burden, finds obstacle, furthers ultimate objective-developing fair protecting Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Gray 467 717, 720 (1984). transfers assets individuals worker wanted jurisdictions divorced workers often prefer child, spouse, assets. secure changing form; doing awareness, understanding, time. created assumption works ex-spouse. embodied Uniform Probate Code; human experience; expertise "more often" serves cause "[j]ustice." Langbein, Nonprobate Revolution Future Law Succession, Harv. L. 1108, 1135 42 forbidding wife, already acquired, during proceeding, share couple's property, addition awarded husband. specific, received business, IRA account, stock; received, things, 100% 31-34. 6-month period death. result, windfall approximately $80,000 expense David's children. enacted prevent unfair result. relying inconsequential concludes 43 logic decision stop laws. virtually indistinguishable rules, using presumptions simultaneous deaths, prohibit husband kills receiving wrongful particularly latter differ us? Slayer statutes-like statute-"gover[n] contrary suggestion, 9-10, slayer vary details Compare Ariz. 14-2803(F) (requiring proof, civil preponderance evidence standard); Haw. 560:2-803(g) (1999) Ga. 53-1-5(d) proof convincing Me. Ann., Tit. 18-A, 2-803(e) (1998) (same); Ala. Code. 43-8-253(e) (1991) (treating conviction conclusive becomes final); Tit right appeal exhausted"); seem serious, few, any, permit "ERISA analysis," said, "respect" "separate spher[e]" "authority." (1987) Alessi Raybestos-Manhattan, 451 504, 522 (1981)) (internal quotation marks stating, importance preserving local independence, retail, applying care, line, best reconcile federalism's need preserve autonomy. today's world, complexity, test federalist lie, occasional constitutional effort trim Congress' commerce edges, Morrison, 598 (2000), protect State's treasury damages Board Trustees Univ. Garrett, 531 ___ (2001), mass technical detail diet AT&T Corp. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 366, 427 part). 45 pre-emption" "direct" significant objective. Any squeeze additional force words (i.e., to") regarding property-a "fiel[d] interpretive strong. For reasons, disagree conclusion. And, consequently, dissent. 46 APPENDIX OPINION BREYER, J.

Category: 9