The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, January 15, 1997
Decision: Monday, June 2, 1997
Issues: Federalism, Federal Preemption of State Regulation

Advocates

Edward J. Deano, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent)
Marian M. Livaudais (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Paul R. Q. Wolfson (Department of Justice, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Isaac Boggs married Sandra Boggs, the petitioner, after the death of Dorothy, his previous wife. When Isaac retired in 1985, he received various benefits from his employer's retirement plans, including a lump sum savings plan distribution, shares of stock from the company's employee stock ownership plan, and a monthly annuity payment. In 1989, following Issac's death a dispute over ownership of the benefits arose between Sandra and Issac's sons, Thomas F., Harry M., and David B. Boggs. The sons' claim is based on Dorothy's purported testamentary transfer to them, under Louisiana law, of a portion of her community property interest in Isaac's undistributed pension plan benefits. Sandra contested the validity of that transfer, arguing that the sons' claim is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Federal District Court disagreed and granted summary judgment against Sandra. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Does the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 pre-empt state community-property law allowing a non-participant spouse to transfer by a testamentary instrument an interest in undistributed pension plan benefits?

Conclusion

Yes. In a opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts state community-property law allowing a non-participant spouse to transfer by a testamentary instrument an interest in undistributed pension plan benefits. Justice Kennedy said "ERISA's solicitude for the economic security of surviving spouses would be undermined" by allowing a previous spouse's heirs to claim a share of such benefits."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Boggs, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Employee Retirement Income Security
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Wrote a dissent
Breyer
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote the majority opinion
Kennedy
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
O'Connor
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_79/>
(last visited ).