Edward A. Zelinsky (Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law) has posted The Ninth Circuit's Jarvis Opinion: A Correct Application of Retrenched ERISA Preemption (New York University Review of Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation (David Pratt, ed., 2021)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) does not preempt California’s private sector retirement savings program, now known as CalSavers. Jarvis is important for two reasons. First, Jarvis is well-reasoned and will be followed by other courts if there are ERISA-preemption challenges to any of the many state-sponsored private sector retirement savings programs modeled on CalSavers.
Second, Jarvis reflects the retrenchment of ERISA preemption and the realignment of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ERISA preemption case law to implement that retrenchment. The retrenchment of ERISA’s preemptive effect began with New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance Co. and was confirmed by Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. The U.S.Supreme Court had initially construed ERISA preemption literally and expansively in Shaw v. Delta Air Lines. Jarvis reflects today’s legal reality that, in the wake of Travelers and Gobeille, ERISA’s preemptive scope is decidedly less pronounced than it previously was under Shaw. Moreover, Gobeille indicates that the Supreme Court’s expansive decisions under Shaw are to be retrospectively reinterpreted under Traveler’s narrower approach to ERISA preemption. Jarvis faithfully implements this retrenchment of ERISA preemption and the realignment of the Supreme Court’s case law to effectuate this retrenchment
