The familiar express preemption provision in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") outlaws any state laws that "relate to" an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). Under this Court's long-standing precedent, state laws impermissibly "relate to" an ERISA plan when they make a "reference to" or have a "connection with" the plan. Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 96-97 (1983). Additionally, ERISA's preemptive scope is still greater because of the exclusive nature of its enforcement scheme. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). Rejecting both express preemption and conflict preemption under ERISA's enforcement regime, the Ninth Circuit held, below, that ERISA does not preempt state-law claims alleging that an insurer, through supposedly false representations about an ERISA plan's prospective terms, induced an employer to establish the plan. Its decision exacerbates existing conflicts among the Circuits on the extent to which ERISA preempts state-law claims involving representations about an ERISA plan, on the scope of the "reference to" prong of ERISA express preemption, and on whether there is a presumption against preemption in express-preemption situations.

The Question Presented is:

Does ERISA preempt state-law claims alleging that an insurer's misrepresentations about an ERISA plan's terms induced an employer to create the plan, either because the claims have a reference to or connection with – and therefore "relate to" – an ERISA plan or because the claims fall within the scope of an ERISA enforcement remedy?

Does ERISA preempt state-law claims alleging that an insurer's misrepresentations about an ERISA plan's terms induced an employer to create the plan?