Plan governance Loper Bright ruling: Impact on DC plan litigation in a post-Chevron world
Key takeaways
-
Loper Bright, which overturned the long-tanding Chevron deference doctrine, calls into question guidance from the Department of Labor (DOL).
-
Regulations that were presumed to be well established – and relied upon by plan sponsors – could be challenged by the courts.
-
Plan sponsors should keep a close eye on litigation challenging (new and old) regulations that may change their compliance obligations.
The Loper Bright case made its way to the United States Supreme Court (the Court) with implications well beyond fishermen and fees for observers. In the lower courts, the opinions relied upon the 1984 case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Ultimately, the Court departed from the Chevron case which previously held that where a statute is unambiguous as to what Congress intended, then Congress’s intent should be followed. However, when a statute is deemed to be ambiguous, then federal agencies may interpret the law, and courts are to defer to that interpretation unless the agency rule is “arbitrary or capricious in substance, or manifestly contrary to the statute.”
The Court did not stop at Loper Bright. In the Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System case, the Court issued another opinion in a matter related to debit cards, though the impact was not really on debit cards but was more impactful for a statute of limitations, which means the deadline for filing a lawsuit.
Implications for Plan Sponsors
There are four key implications from the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine.
- Loper Bright calls into question guidance from the Department of Labor (DOL). If the DOL only has the authority to issue guidance when Congress has specifically directed them to do so, there is a question as to the weight of the DOL guidance in other instances when Congress was not specific enough as to the need for guidance.
- The scope of both Loper Bright and Corner Post are limited to “final agency actions” which does not include informal guidance. Plan sponsors may expect to see more informal guidance such as interpretive guidance and opinion letters (for example, from 2013, the heavily relied upon Target Date Retirement Funds - Tips for ERISA Plan Fiduciaries).
- There is a transfer of power from the executive branch to the judicial branch. For plan sponsors, this may create less clarity. The judicial branch (i.e., the courts) are often less consistent in their outcomes, as district courts and appellate courts may have conflicting outcomes. For example, in a series of recent forfeiture cases, there are inconsistencies with respect to the results within a single district court.
- There is the opportunity for greater litigation when the Loper Bright case is combined with the implications from the Corner Post case. Litigants will include anyone who loses money from regulation and industry trade groups, which will likely be used to bring many lawsuits collectively on behalf of several organizations.
Plan sponsors should consider keeping a close eye on how the outcome from Loper Bright may impact their retirement plans, participants, and compliance obligations. Download the full article to learn more about implications and action steps for plan sponsors.
Related insights
-
DOL proposes asset-neutral rule clarifying ERISA fiduciary prudence for 401(k) alternatives, offering a process-based safe harbor to reduce litigation risk.April 7, 2026 -
Plan governance What plan fiduciaries need to know about implementing managed accounts
Bonnie Treichel
Participants expect personalization in their retirement plan experience, and managed accounts can help. Here’s what to know about including a managed account program on your investment menu.November 10, 2025 -
Plan governance Understanding private markets in defined contribution plans
Bonnie Treichel
Integrating private markets in DC plans presents challenges and opportunities, while requiring fiduciaries to follow a prudent, ERISA-compliant process.July 31, 2025
Important information
NA3995825
Reprinted with permission from Bonnie Treichel. While Invesco believes the information presented in this article to be reliable and current, Invesco was not involved in writing the article and cannot guarantee its accuracy. This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and is not an offer of investment advice or financial products. Invesco is not affiliated with Endeavor Retirement or Endeavor Law.
The opinions expressed are those of the author, are based on current market conditions and are subject to change without notice. These opinions may differ from those of other Invesco investment professionals.
The information provided is general in nature and may not be relied upon nor considered to be the rendering of tax, legal, accounting or professional advice. Readers should consult with their own accountants, lawyers and/or other professionals for advice on their specific circumstances before taking any action.
Leaving Invesco.com
This link takes you to a site not affiliated with Invesco. The site is for informational purposes only. Invesco does not guarantee nor take any responsibility for any of the content.