| Egelhoff v. Egelhoff | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 8, 2000 Decided March 21, 2001 | |
| Full case name | Donna Rae Egelhoff, Petitioner v. Samantha Egelhoff, A Minor, By and Through Her Natural Parent Kate Breiner, and David Egelhoff |
| Citations | 532 U.S. 141 (more) 121 S. Ct. 1322; 149 L. Ed. 2d 264; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 2458; 69 U.S.L.W. 4206; 25 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2089; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 2861; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1477; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 147 |
| Holding | |
| State statutes having a connection with ERISA plans are superseded by ERISA. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Ginsburg |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. | |
Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on federalism, specifically with regards to the preemption powers of federal law over state laws. It sets the precedent that any state statutes having a "connection with" ERISA plans are superseded by ERISA, or any future substantially similar law that takes its place. In essence, this decision is a reaffirmation of the right and ability of the federal government to, at least in some instances, pre-empt state laws.