United States prudencedefined contribution plansduty to monitor

Hughes v. Nw. Univ.

Hughes v. Northwestern University, 595 U.S. 170 (2022)

JurisdictionUnited States

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

Year2022

StatusBinding authority

Key Principle

Under ERISA's duty of prudence, plan fiduciaries must conduct their own independent, ongoing evaluation of plan investments and remove imprudent options within a reasonable time; offering some prudent, low-cost options does not insulate fiduciaries from liability for also retaining imprudent ones.

Area of Law

General

Related Cases

Klein v. Martin 607 U. S. 213 (2026)

Ellingburg v. United States 607 U.S. ___ (2026)

Inc. v. Palmquist 607 U.S. 421 (2026)

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Hughes v. Nw. Univ. and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Hughes v. Nw. Univ.