M & K Employee Solutions, LLC, et al. v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund (23-1209)
- Term
- OT 2025
- Argued
- 2026-01-20
- Decided
- 2026-05-21
- Vote
- 9-0 for Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund
- Opinion
- Justice Jackson
- Majority
- Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
The case in brief
Facts
Under a federal pension law called ERISA, a company that stops paying into an underfunded pension plan shared by several employers must pay "withdrawal liability," its share of the plan's funding gap, measured as of the last day of the plan year before it leaves. Four employers left the IAM National Pension Fund in 2018, and the Fund calculated their bills as of December 31, 2017. To do so, the Fund used a 6.50% discount rate (an interest-rate assumption that turns future benefit payments into today's dollars) that it had adopted in January 2018, instead of the 7.50% rate it used before. The lower rate sharply raised the bills; one employer owed about $6.2 million instead of about $1.8 million. Arbitrators sided with the employers, but federal trial courts and the D.C. Circuit sided with the Fund, creating a split with the Second Circuit that led the Supreme Court to take the case.
Question
Does federal pension law require that the assumptions used to calculate a departing employer's withdrawal liability be chosen on or before the date the liability is measured?
Conclusion
The Court ruled 9-0 for the Fund's trustees, in an opinion by Justice Jackson, and affirmed the D.C. Circuit. It held that the law does not require actuarial assumptions to be chosen by the measurement date. The Court reasoned that the "as of" language fixes the plan's hard facts on that date, but assumptions are forecasting tools, and the law sets no deadline for choosing them. The Court added that letting actuaries use later data fits the law's demand for their "best estimate," and it rejected the employers' worries about manipulation as policy concerns that cannot override the text.
Opinion of the Court
Authored by Justice Jackson (4,541 words total).
Volume 608 U. S. Part 1 Pages 264–277
THE SUPREME COURT May 21, 2026
Page Proof Pending Publication
NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
M & K EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. v. TRUSTEES OF THE IAM NATIONAL PENSION FUND certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 23–1209. Argued January 20, 2026—Decided May 21, 2026 Pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended, an employer that stops participating in an underfunded Multiemployer Pension Plan (MPP), must pay the plan “withdrawal liability,” i.e., the employer's share of the plan's unfunded vested benefts (UVBs). See 29 U. S. C. § 1391. Withdrawal liability is calculated based on the plan's UVBs “as of ” the statutory measurement date—the last day of the plan year preceding the employer's withdrawal. §§ 1391(b)(2)(E)(i), (c)(2)(C)(i), (3)(A), (4)(A). Determining the value of a plan's UVBs depends upon both hard data (such as the number of benefciaries and the value of the plan's assets) and a variety of actuarial predictions about the future. One key actuarial assumption is the discount rate, which is the interest rate “used to discount future beneft payments to their present value.” 87 Fed. Reg. 62317. Petitioners are four employers who withdrew from the IAM National Pension Fund (Fund)—an underfunded MPP—between April and December 2018. The Fund assessed each employer's withdrawal liability “as of ” December 31, 2017 (the measurement date). In making this calculation, the Fund applied a discount rate of 6.50%, which it had adopted with its actuarial frm in January 2018. The Fund had previously used a discount rate of 7.50% to value its UVBs. Petitioners each initiated arbitrations challenging their assessments. In each case, the arbitrators determined that the assessments were erroneous because the Fund had applied actuarial assumptions adopted after the measurement date. The arbitrators instead required the Fund to use the actuarial assumptions that were “in effect” on the measurement date—i.e., the 7.50% discount rate. App. 293. The Fund sought review in Federal District Court. The courts disagreed with the arbitrators and held that actuaries could use assumptions adopted after the measurement date. The D. C. Circuit affrmed in a consolidated appeal. Its decision conficted with a decision of the Second Circuit, and this Court granted certiorari to resolve when actuarial assumptions may be selected for purposes of calculating withdrawal liability.
Page Proof Pending Publication
Syllabus Held: The provisions of ERISA governing the calculation of withdrawal liability—§§ 1391 and 1393—do not require the actuarial assumptions underlying that calculation to be selected on or before the measurement date. Pp. 271–277. (a) Section 1391 requires withdrawal liability to be calculated based on the value of a plan's UVBs “as of ” the measurement date. Petitioners contend that § 1391's “as of ” language establishes a deadline for the selection of actuarial assumptions. But § 1391 sets no such deadline. The term “as of ” is understood “to assign an event to one time and the recognition of it to another.” W. Follett, Modern American Usage 41. Section 1391's “as of ” language thus means that the hard data that feeds the UVB calculation must be fxed on the measurement date, but the calculation itself can be performed after that date. Actuarial assumptions are not observable facts about the plan; instead, they are predictive judgments used as tools to calculate UVBs. Accordingly, while § 1391's “as of ” requirement sets the reference point for factual inputs, it has no bearing on when actuaries must select their assumptions. Pp. 271–274. (b) Section 1393, which governs the use of actuarial assumptions for assessing withdrawal liability, states that the assumptions must be “reasonable,” “tak[e] into account the experience of the plan and reasonable expectations,” and “offer the actuary's best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan.” § 1393(a)(1). Section 1393 provides no deadline by which actuaries must select their assumptions, and the Court does not generally read limitations into statutes that do not appear in their text. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., 590 U. S. 212, 215. Indeed, because Congress included a deadline for the selection of actuarial assumptions in a different section of the statute, but imposed no similar limit in § 1393, the Court presumes that the omission in § 1393 is intentional. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23. Moreover, § 1393's instruction that actuarial assumptions refect the actuary's “best estimate,” § 1393(a)(1), supports the conclusion that actuaries can select their assumptions after the measurement date. Requiring actuaries to use assumptions selected before the measurement date could prevent them from relying on the most up-to-date data when selecting their assumptions, resulting in assumptions that do not refect their “best estimate.” Pp. 274–275. (c) Petitioners' remaining arguments do not overcome the absence of a textual deadline for adopting actuarial assumptions. First, petitioners point to a different provision of ERISA that prohibits plans from applying any new “plan rule or amendment” to an employer's withdrawal liability if the rule or amendment is adopted after the employer with-
Page Proof Pending Publication
Excerpt of 8 of 53 paragraphs. Full opinion available on the interactive page or in the official PDF.
Read the slip opinion (PDF) · Interactive oral-argument transcript · All tracked cases
This static summary is shown when JavaScript is disabled. The full interactive analysis loads above.