MetLife v. Glenn

Holding: (1) Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch sets out four principles as to the appropriate standard of judicial review under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; (2) a plan administrator's dual role of both evaluating and paying benefits claims creates the kind of conflict of interest referred to in Firestone; and (3) the significance of the conflict of interest factor will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. There is nothing improper in the way the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit conducted its review.

Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer on June 19, 2008. Chief Justice Roberts joined the majority opinion as to all but Part IV. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Kennedy filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Opinion Recap: MetLife v. Glenn (Eliza Presson)
• Court rules on self-representation; 4 workers' rights decisions (Lyle Denniston)
• Argument recap: MetLife v. Glenn (Scotus Staff)
• Argument preview: MetLife v. Glenn (Scotus Staff)
• Court to hear case on "light" cigarette ads (Lyle Denniston)

Briefs and Documents

Certiorari stage

• Opinion below (Sixth Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply
• Invitation brief of the United States (recommending grant)

Merits briefs (via ABA)

• Brief for Petitioner Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Long Term Disability Plan for Associates of Sears, Roebuck and Company
• Brief for Respondent Wanda Glenn
• Reply Brief for Petitioner Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Long Term Disability Plan for Associates of Sears, Roebuck and Company

Amicus briefs

• Brief for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the American Council of Life Insurers in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the American Benefits Council, and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the New York City Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the United States of American in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in Support of Respondent
• Brief of AARP in Support of Respondent
• Brief of the American Dental Association in Support of Respondent
• Brief of Law Professors in Support of Respondent
• Brief of the National Employment Lawyers Association and United Policyholders in Support of Respondent
• Brief of South Brooklyn Legal Services and Legal Services of New York City in Support of Respondent
• Brief of Legal Aid Society and the Employment Law Center in Support of Respondent
• Brief of Trust Law and Erisa Law Professors in Support of Respondent