Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee
No. 25-498 · October Term 2026 · Economic Activity · argument October 6, 2026
Expected vote 6–3 for Anderson. Chance of a unanimous ruling 45%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
Winston R. Anderson and other petitioners are suing the Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) due to fund underperformance. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the petitioners, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court must decide whether claims of ERISA fiduciary imprudence based on fund underperformance require alleging a "meaningful benchmark."
- What constitutes a sufficient pleading standard for ERISA breach of prudence claims predicated on fund underperformance?
- Does the "context-specific inquiry" required by ERISA preclude a requirement to allege a "meaningful benchmark" for underperformance claims?
- How does the Court's prior guidance in Fifth Third Bancorp. v. Dudenhoeffer and Hughes v. Nw. Univ. apply to the specific pleading requirements for fund underperformance?
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a plan fiduciary is subject to a "[p]rudent man standard of care," which requires the fiduciary to "discharge his duties with respect to a plan" with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that a prudent person "acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use." 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a) (1)). As this Court has recognized, a court's inquiry into whether a plaintiff has adequately alleged that a fiduciary breached ERISA's duty of prudence "will necessarily be context specific" because the content of that duty "turns on 'the circumstances ... prevailing' at the time the fiduciary acts." Fifth Third Bancorp. v. Dudenhoeffer , 573 U.S. 409, 425 (2014) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B)). As a result, "categorical" pleading rules are "inconsistent with the context-specific inquiry that ERISA requires." Hughes v. Nw. Univ ., 595 U.S.170, 173 (2022). The question presented is: Whether, for claims predicated on fund underperformance, pleading that an ERISA fiduciary failed to use the requisite "care, skill, prudence, or diligence" under the circumstances and thus breached ERISA's duty of prudence when investing plan assets requires alleging a "meaningful benchmark."
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Economic Activity cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes judicial restraint and adherence to statutory text, which in this case would involve a careful reading of ERISA's prudence standard and prior precedents like Dudenhoeffer and Hughes. | 63% Anderson | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 68% Economic Activity · 328 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas typically favors originalist interpretations and a strict reading of statutory language, which could lead him to scrutinize the precise wording of ERISA's duty of prudence and the extent to which it permits or requires specific pleading standards. | 63% Anderson | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 62% Economic Activity · 555 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito often takes a pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation, and his vote may hinge on whether a "meaningful benchmark" requirement aligns with the practical realities of fiduciary oversight and the goals of ERISA. | 63% Anderson | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 67% Economic Activity · 322 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often considers the practical impact of legal standards on individuals and beneficiaries, and her analysis might focus on whether a stringent pleading requirement would unduly burden plaintiffs seeking to hold fiduciaries accountable. | 66% Anderson | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 58% Economic Activity · 264 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan frequently emphasizes the importance of precedent and a holistic understanding of statutory schemes, suggesting she would carefully consider how a "meaningful benchmark" requirement fits within the existing ERISA jurisprudence established in Dudenhoeffer and Hughes. | 66% Anderson | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 59% Economic Activity · 249 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch often prioritizes textualism and a skepticism towards judge-made rules that add to statutory requirements, which could lead him to question whether ERISA's text supports a specific "meaningful benchmark" pleading standard. | 63% Anderson | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 60% Economic Activity · 141 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often seeks to balance competing interests and may look for a practical standard that provides clarity for both fiduciaries and beneficiaries while remaining consistent with ERISA's objectives. | 63% Anderson | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 68% Economic Activity · 123 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett often employs a textualist approach, focusing on the plain meaning of the statute, and her decision would likely center on whether the language of ERISA's prudence standard implicitly or explicitly requires such a benchmark. | 63% Anderson | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 65% Economic Activity · 85 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often considers the real-world implications of legal rules and may be inclined to ensure that pleading standards do not create an insurmountable barrier for plaintiffs alleging fiduciary breaches under ERISA. | 68% Anderson | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 55% Economic Activity · 62 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.