You won’t want to miss reading the transcript for oral arguments in the case of MetLife v. Glenn argued before the Supreme Court this morning. Access it here. I liked this exchange regarding reference to the Supreme Court’s previous decision in the Firestone case:
MR. ROSENKRANZ: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: This Court got it right in Firestone when it said, of course a conflict must be weighed. There’s no reason for this Court to override its well-reasoned and unanimous conclusion which –
JUSTICE SCALIA: Dictum.
MR. ROSENKRANZ: It was dictum, Your Honor, but it was very well-considered dictum because -(Laughter.)
MR. ROSENKRANZ: — the only issue before the Court so far as the parties thought was what is the effect of this dual role that Firestone had? And this Court did not answer that question, but that’s what the parties were arguing about. So this Court correctly discerned the rule from trust law. It correctly discerned and balanced ERISA’s policies and, if anything –
JUSTICE SCALIA: What I don’t like about the dictum is I don’t know what it means.
MR. ROSENKRANZ: Your Honor –
JUSTICE SCALIA: I think it’s lovely to say weigh it as a factor, it gets the case off our docket and it’s fine. But what does it mean?
Read more about the case in a post here by Roy Harmon and a post here by Stephen Rosenberg.
UPDATE: Paul Secunda has some good analysis and commentary here on today’s oral arguments.