Court Opinion

ID: 9433317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:39:51.341888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:40.541126
License: Public Domain

*898Justice Breyer,
with whom Justice Souter joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join the Court’s opinion except for its conclusion in Part III-B that “the payment of benefits pursuant to an amended plan, regardless of what the plan requires of the employee in return for those benefits, does not constitute a prohibited transaction.” Ante, at 895. The legal question addressed in Part III-B is a difficult one, which we need not here answer and which would benefit from further development in the lower courts, where interested parties who are experienced in these highly :technical, important matters could present their views. ' Accordingly, I would follow the suggestion of the Solicitor General that the Court not reach the issue in this case.