# Egelhoff v. Egelhoff Ex Rel. Breiner > Supreme Court of the United States · April 2, 2001 · 532 U.S. 141 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434061 ## Case - **Full name:** EGELHOFF v. EGELHOFF, a Minor, by and Through Her Natural Parent, BREINER, Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** April 2, 2001 - **Citations:** 532 U.S. 141; 121 S. Ct. 1322; 149 L. Ed. 2d 264; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 2458 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scaua - **Judges:** Breyer, Ginsburg, Scaua, Stevens, Thomas - **Cited by:** 704 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434061 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that a 'principal goal[] of ERISA' was 'to enable employers "to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits" ' and that '[u]niformity is impossible ... if plans are su… - holding that state law that removed named beneficiaryspouse from former spouse’s life insurance policy upon divorcewas preemptedbecause “[t]his ‘tailoring of plans and employer conduct to the peculiarities of the law of each jurisdiction’ is exactly the burden ERISA seeks to e… - holding that a state statute providing that a beneficiary designation is automatically revoked on divorce was preempted because it bound “plan administrators to a particular choice of rules for determining beneficiary status” and thus “govern[ed] the payment of benefits, a cen… - holding the state statute “directly conflicts with ERISA’s requirements that plans be administered, and benefits be paid, inaccordance with plan documents” because the statute requires administrators to look outside the plan to divorce orders to determine who is entitled to be… - holding that a Washington state law which automatically revoked designation of spouse as plan beneficiary upon divorce was preempted as applied to ERISA plans because it conflicted with ERISA’s requirement that a plan be administered according to the plan’s terms ## Opinion text Justice Scaua, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court, since I believe that the "relate to” pre-emptive provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is assuredly triggered by a state law that contradicts ERISA. As the Court notes, "the statute at issue here directly conflicts with ERISA’s requirements that plans be administered, and benefits be paid, in accordance with plan documents.” Ante, at 150. I remain unsure (as I think the lower courts and everyone else will be) as to what else triggers the "relate to” pro *153 vision, which — if it is interpreted to be anything other than a reference to our established jurisprudence concerning conflict and field pre-emption — has no discernible content that would not pick up every ripple in the pond, producing a result “that no sensible person could have intended.” California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N. A., Inc., 519 U. S. 316, 386 (1997) (Scalia, J., concurring). I persist in the view that we can bring some coherence to this area, and can give the statute both a plausible and precise content, only by interpreting the “relate to” clause as a reference to our ordinary pre-emption jurisprudence. See ibid. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434061. Public record. Not legal advice.