| Revision as of 21:05, 20 December 2024 editLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,589 edits Reference edited with ProveIt #proveitTag: ProveIt edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:06, 20 December 2024 edit undoLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,589 edits added Category:Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 using HotCatNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 21:06, 20 December 2024
2020 United States Supreme Court case| Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Decided December 10, 2020 | |
| Full case name | Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n |
| Docket no. | 18-540 |
| Citations | 592 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Holding | |
| State statutes are only preempted by ERISA if they have an "impermissible connection" to ERISA plans or they "refer to" ERISA plans. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 | |
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that state statutes are only preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) if they have an "impermissible connection" to ERISA plans or they "refer to" ERISA plans.
See also
References
- Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n, No. 18-540, 592 U.S. ___ (2020).
- "Opinion analysis: Court rejects challenge to states' authority to regulate pharmacy reimbursements". SCOTUSblog. 2020-12-13. Retrieved 2024-12-20.
External links
- Text of Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n, No. 18-540, 592 U.S. ___ (2020) is available from: Justia
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |