What Happens After the Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in a DOL 401(k) Rule Challenge?

A grant of certiorari starts the merits case. It does not decide it.

That distinction is the first thing a retirement-plan compliance team should record.

Before the grant, the central question is:

Will the Supreme Court take the case?

After the grant, the question becomes:

How should the federal question accepted by the Court be decided?

The parties move into a different briefing structure, a different calendar and eventually oral argument.^[1]

Nothing about that transition automatically means:

• DOL has won
• DOL has lost
• the lower-court judgment has been stayed
• a challenged rule has returned
• a challenged rule has disappeared
• every issue raised in the petition is now before the Court.

INV-219 covers the selection stage.

This article starts with the grant.

The Grant Order Defines the New Case

A Supreme Court grant order can be shorter than the litigation history beneath it.

That does not make it unimportant.

The order can determine:

• which petition is granted
• whether related petitions are also granted
• whether cases are consolidated
• whether review is limited to one question
• how much argument time will be available.

A petitioner may have asked the Court to review three questions.

The Court can grant:

Question 1 only.

That changes the merits case immediately.

Arguments tied only to Questions 2 and 3 do not become part of the merits dispute merely because they appeared in the petition.

The clean reporting rule is:

Track the question granted, not just the petition filed.

Certiorari Granted Does Not Mean the Petitioner Is Right

The Rule of Four belongs to case selection.^[1]

A grant means enough Justices concluded that the case should be heard.

It does not establish:

• five votes on the merits
• agreement with the petitioner's legal theory
• agreement with the requested remedy
• agreement that the lower court committed reversible error.

A Justice can vote to hear a case because a question needs national resolution and later vote against the petitioner.

That is not inconsistent.

The first vote asks:

Should the Court decide this?

The later vote asks:

What is the correct answer?

The Grant Also Does Not Operate as a Stay

This boundary survives the transition from INV-219.

Suppose a court of appeals has invalidated a DOL regulation.

DOL obtains certiorari.

A compliance email says:

"The Supreme Court took the case, so the rule is back in effect."

That does not follow.

The grant order and the stay question are separate.

The operative legal position may depend on:

• a district-court stay
• a court-of-appeals stay
• the appellate mandate
• a Supreme Court stay order
• the scope of the judgment under review
• later DOL action.

A certiorari grant changes the Supreme Court docket.

It does not, by itself, suspend the judgment below.

Merits Briefing Is Not a Longer Certiorari Petition

The certiorari petition had to explain why the Court should take the case.

The merits brief has a different task:

show why the accepted federal question should be resolved in the party's favor.

The emphasis changes.

At the petition stage, a filing may focus heavily on:

• circuit conflict
• national importance
• recurring legal uncertainty
• conflict with Supreme Court precedent
• the suitability of the case as a vehicle.

At the merits stage, the brief must develop:

• the governing text
• precedent
• history where relevant
• the lower-court reasoning
• the administrative-law framework
• the requested disposition.

The case-selection argument recedes.

The legal answer takes over.

Rule 25 Sets the Ordinary Merits Briefing Sequence

Under the Supreme Court Rules effective March 16, 2026, the petitioner ordinarily files the opening merits brief within:

45 days after the order granting certiorari.^[1]

The respondent ordinarily files within:

30 days after the petitioner's merits brief is filed.^[1]

The petitioner may then file a reply within:

30 days after the respondent's brief, subject to an important oral-argument cutoff.^[1]

The reply must actually be received by the Clerk no later than:

2 p.m. 10 days before oral argument.^[1]

That means the nominal 30-day reply period can be shortened by the argument calendar.

The Court Can Change the Briefing Calendar

The Rule 25 schedule is the baseline.

It is not an immutable calendar.

Parties regularly ask the Court to extend or otherwise adjust merits filing dates.

The docket matters more than a generic deadline calculator.

A litigation tracker should store:

The correct deadline is the one produced by:

current rule + actual Court order.

The Principal Merits Briefs Are Currently Limited to 13,000 Words

Current Rule 33 gives the petitioner's principal merits brief a limit of:

13,000 words.^[1]

The respondent's principal merits brief is also:

13,000 words.^[1]

The petitioner's merits reply is:

6,000 words.^[1]

That is materially different from the 9,000-word paid certiorari petition discussed in INV-219.

The extra space reflects a different job.

The merits brief must fully develop the accepted legal question.

It still has to be selective.

A 13,000-word ceiling is not permission to relitigate every issue ever raised in the case.

The Question Presented Still Controls the Shape of the Brief

A DOL rule challenge can involve many theories:

• ERISA statutory authority
• arbitrary-and-capricious review
• notice and comment
• standing
• remedy
• finality
• venue.

Suppose the Court grants only the statutory-authority question.

The merits brief should not behave as though the Court granted a general audit of the entire lawsuit.

That matters especially in regulatory litigation, where a large administrative record can make every issue look connected.

The Supreme Court case is narrower than:

everything the parties dislike about the rule.

It is organized around the question accepted for review.

Rule 24 Controls the Substance of the Merits Brief

Rule 24 prescribes the principal merits-brief structure.^[1]

The filing generally includes:

• questions presented
• list of parties and corporate disclosure where required
• table of contents
• table of authorities
• citation to the opinions and orders below
• jurisdiction
• relevant constitutional, statutory or regulatory provisions
• statement of the case
• summary of argument
• argument
• conclusion specifying the precise relief sought.^[1]

That last item matters.

The Court is not deciding abstract legal trivia.

A party needs to tell the Court what judgment it wants.

For a DOL challenge, that could include a request to:

• affirm
• reverse
• vacate
• remand.

Those verbs are not interchangeable.

The Joint Appendix Is a Selected Record Tool

Rule 26 governs the joint appendix.^[1]

The appendix is meant to put useful portions of the record before the Court in a workable form.

It may include items such as:

• relevant docket entries
• pleadings
• findings
• opinions
• orders
• record material important to the accepted question.

It is not a license to create a new evidentiary record.

That distinction is critical in APA litigation.

A party cannot use the Supreme Court appendix to transform:

material that was never properly before the lower court

into:

new merits evidence.

The appendix organizes record material.

It does not rewrite the record.

The Printed Joint Appendix Can Sometimes Be Dispensed With

Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association gives a concrete example.

After the Supreme Court granted review in June 2014, the DOL petitioners moved to dispense with printing the joint appendix.^[6]

The Court granted that request.^[6]

That does not mean there was no record.

It means the Court allowed the case to proceed without a separately printed joint appendix.

The distinction matters when reading a docket.

Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted

does not mean:

Court will decide without the lower-court record.

Merits-Stage Amicus Briefs Run on Their Own Clock

Rule 37 gives amici a separate merits-stage schedule.^[1]

An amicus supporting a party generally files within:

seven days after the brief for the supported party is filed.^[1]

An amicus supporting neither party generally files within seven days after the time allowed for the petitioner's merits brief.^[1]

The Court will not entertain motions extending the merits-stage amicus deadline under Rule 37.3.^[1]

This is a hard operational distinction.

The amicus deadline is not simply:

same day as the party.

Current Amicus Word Limits Are Not All the Same

Current Rule 33 distinguishes among merits-stage amici.^[1]

An ordinary private amicus merits brief generally has an:

8,000-word limit.^[1]

An amicus identified in Rule 37.6 receives:

9,000 words.^[1]

Rule 37.6 includes specified governmental filers that do not need party consent or leave in the same way as ordinary amici.^[1]

That creates a useful publishing rule:

Do not write:

"All Supreme Court merits amicus briefs are limited to 8,000 words."

The current rule is more specific.

An Amicus Is Supposed to Add Something

Rule 37 says an amicus brief should bring relevant matter not already presented by the parties.^[1]

That is more than etiquette.

It explains why a trade association's best contribution may not be another 40 pages saying:

"the rule is bad."

A useful retirement-industry amicus might instead explain:

• how the same DOL definition affects multiple business models
• why a proposed legal test produces conflicting compliance obligations
• how recordkeepers must operationalize the rule
• how the legal issue affects participant communications
• why the question recurs across circuits.

The value is additional perspective.

Repetition consumes pages without improving the Court's understanding.

DOL Is Not Usually Standing Alone at the Supreme Court Lectern

When the federal government is a party, Supreme Court litigation ordinarily operates through the Department of Justice.

28 U.S.C. 518 provides that, except when the Attorney General directs otherwise, the Attorney General and Solicitor General conduct and argue Supreme Court cases in which the United States is interested.^[4]

That matters when describing a DOL case.

The caption may say:

Secretary of Labor

or:

Department of Labor.

The Supreme Court advocate may be:

• the Solicitor General
• a Deputy Solicitor General
• an Assistant to the Solicitor General
• another DOJ lawyer acting within that structure.

That is normal federal appellate practice.

Perez Shows the Solicitor General Structure in a Real DOL Case

Perez involved the Secretary of Labor and the Department's Wage and Hour Division rather than ERISA.^[6][9]

It is still useful because the procedural machinery is real DOL Supreme Court litigation.

The Court's December 2014 hearing list identified:

Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General

for the petitioners.^[8]

The case therefore illustrates an important distinction:

agency is party

does not mean:

agency's internal counsel personally presents oral argument.

Perez Is a Clean Post-Grant Timeline

The sequence is unusually useful for this topic.^[6]

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on:

June 16, 2014.

The Court also granted the related petition in Nickols and consolidated the cases for:

one hour of oral argument.^[6]

The parties then moved through merits briefing.

The docket shows extensions for the merits briefs.^[6]

The petitioners filed in August 2014.

The respondents filed in October 2014.

The Court heard oral argument on:

December 1, 2014.^[8]

The Court decided the case on:

March 9, 2015.^[9]

That is the actual post-grant path:

grant → merits schedule → briefs → argument → decision.

The Question in Perez Was Broader Than One Wage Dispute

The question presented asked whether an agency must use notice-and-comment rulemaking before significantly changing an interpretive rule interpreting one of its own regulations.^[7]

That is why Perez was useful beyond mortgage-loan officers.

The dispute implicated:

• Administrative Procedure Act procedure
• interpretive rules
• judicially created procedural requirements
• federal agency practice.

The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit.^[9]

The Court held that the APA's exemption for interpretive rules did not disappear merely because an agency changed a prior interpretation.^[9]

That is the merits phase doing its real work.

The Court resolved the legal question it accepted.

Consolidation Can Change the Shape of Argument

Perez was consolidated with Nickols.^[6][8]

That meant two petitions became one combined merits event for argument purposes.

Consolidation can affect:

• captions
• briefing coordination
• allocation of oral-argument time
• the questions the Court addresses together.

It does not mean every argument in every lower-court filing suddenly receives equal Supreme Court attention.

The Court controls the shape of the merits case.

Oral Argument Is Supposed to Clarify the Briefs

Rule 28 says oral argument should:

emphasize and clarify the written arguments in the merits briefs.^[1]

Counsel should assume the Justices have read those briefs.^[1]

That single rule defeats a common misconception.

Oral argument is not a live executive summary for judges who have not opened the file.

It is an interactive test of:

• legal rules
• limiting principles
• statutory text
• precedent
• consequences
• remedy.

The best question can force counsel to identify what the written brief left implicit.

Each Side Ordinarily Gets 30 Minutes

Unless the Court directs otherwise, Rule 28 ordinarily gives:

one-half hour per side.^[1]

That does not mean every case uses exactly 30 minutes per party.

The Court can:

• consolidate cases
• grant additional time
• allocate time among parties or amici
• set another structure.

The default is a side-based allocation.

That matters in a case with:

• multiple industry plaintiffs
• intervenors
• DOL
• another federal agency
• related petitions.

Five parties do not automatically produce five separate 30-minute blocks.

Divided Argument Is Not Automatic

Rule 28 generally contemplates one attorney for each side unless the Court grants leave for more.^[1]

Divided argument is not favored.^[1]

That can create a strategic problem in a complex DOL case.

Suppose one side includes:

• trade association
• individual adviser
• insurer
• plan sponsor.

All may have different factual perspectives.

The Court still wants a coherent answer to the accepted legal question.

The merits stage rewards consolidation of argument, not multiplication of speakers.

The Petitioner Opens and May Rebut

The petitioner ordinarily opens oral argument and may conclude it.^[1]

In practice, counsel may reserve part of the allotted time for rebuttal.

Rebuttal is not a second opening argument.

It is the final chance to answer points made after the petitioner's initial presentation.

The limited time forces prioritization.

A Supreme Court argument that tries to cover every lower-court issue usually loses clarity.

Oral Argument Does Not Create a New Administrative Record

This point is especially important in an APA challenge.

The Justices can ask:

• hypothetical questions
• how a statutory term operates
• what consequences follow from a proposed rule
• where a party's limiting principle stops.

Those exchanges are legal argument.

They are not new evidence submitted to DOL during rulemaking.

A transcript does not become a new administrative record merely because a lawyer describes industry practice at the lectern.

The evidentiary and administrative-record issues remain what they were.

A Hard Oral Argument Is Not a Judgment

Commentators routinely overread oral argument.

A Justice may ask aggressive questions because the Justice:

• disagrees
• wants a limiting principle
• is testing the other side's best answer
• is helping clarify an issue
• is exploring a consequence not fully developed in briefing.

The transcript is valuable.

It is not the judgment.

For a 401(k) compliance team, this sentence is unsafe:

"DOL is likely to lose, so implementation should change now."

The operational trigger is an actual legal event.

Oral-argument tone is not one.

The Court Has More Options Than Affirm or Reverse

28 U.S.C. 2106 gives the Supreme Court and other appellate courts broad remedial authority.^[5]

The Court may:

• affirm
• modify
• vacate
• set aside
• reverse

and may remand for further proceedings.^[5]

That means this binary is too crude:

government wins / government loses.

The disposition may preserve part of the lower result, reject part, and send unresolved work back.

Affirmance Leaves the Reviewed Judgment Standing

An affirmance means the Supreme Court leaves the judgment under review in place.

That does not necessarily mean the Court endorses every sentence written below.

The Supreme Court can agree with the result while using different reasoning.

For precedent analysis, separate:

• judgment
• rationale.

That is particularly important in administrative law, where the lower court may have discussed multiple alternative grounds.

Reversal Rejects the Lower-Court Judgment

A reversal means the Supreme Court concludes the judgment below was wrong.

But:

reversed

does not always mean:

the entire dispute is finished at the Supreme Court with nothing left below.

The Court can reverse and remand.

That tells the lower court to continue under the Supreme Court's legal ruling.

Perez followed that basic form: the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and the lower-court litigation had to conform to the new legal rule.^[9]

Vacatur Is Not Just a Synonym for Reversal

Vacatur nullifies the judgment or order identified in the Supreme Court disposition.

It is a distinct procedural verb.

A Supreme Court order can:

vacate the court-of-appeals judgment

without itself:

vacating a DOL regulation.

The object matters.

INV-207's actor/object/remedy discipline applies here again.

Always ask:

What did the Supreme Court vacate?

A lower-court judgment?

An injunction?

An agency action?

Those are different.

Remand Means More Work Remains

A remand sends the case back.

The lower court may need to:

• apply the Supreme Court's legal rule
• reconsider another issue
• enter a new judgment
• address a remedy
• determine whether another claim survives.

In a DOL case, remand can also interact with later agency action.

That is why this sentence can be wrong:

"Supreme Court decided the case, so litigation is over."

The Supreme Court may have decided the controlling legal issue while leaving procedural work below.

A Supreme Court Opinion Is Not the Same as an Agency Implementation Notice

Suppose the Court rules against DOL.

The opinion may determine:

• statutory meaning
• validity of a lower-court judgment
• what standard the lower court must apply.

The Department may still need to decide what operational action follows.

Depending on the posture, that might involve:

• public guidance
• Federal Register action
• enforcement instructions
• regulatory revision
• no immediate new agency action because the court order itself controls.

Do not invent an agency step that has not occurred.

The Court speaks for the judiciary.

DOL separately manages agency implementation.

Rule 41 Covers the Court's Opinions

The Supreme Court's rules provide for release and publication of opinions.^[1]

For a reader tracking a retirement case, the opinion should be parsed into at least four fields:

A headline that says:

"Supreme Court says DOL has no authority"

may badly overstate a decision that actually says:

the lower court used the wrong test and must reconsider.

Read the judgment before writing the conclusion.

Majority, Plurality and Separate Opinions Should Not Be Collapsed

A 9-0 judgment can still contain disagreement over reasoning.

A 5-4 judgment can have a straightforward majority rule.

A plurality can complicate the controlling rationale.

The basic reporting discipline is:

• identify the opinion of the Court
• identify separate concurrences
• identify dissents
• do not convert a concurrence into the holding
• do not convert a dissent into current law.

This is not academic formatting.

A DOL compliance memo can become materially wrong if it relies on the most quotable separate opinion rather than the controlling one.

Rule 44 Creates a Separate Rehearing Stage

After a Supreme Court merits judgment, Rule 44 permits a petition for rehearing.^[1]

The ordinary merits-rehearing deadline is:

25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time.^[1]

The petition must state its grounds briefly and distinctly.

It is not subject to oral argument.^[1]

A response is not filed unless the Court requests one.^[1]

Rehearing is therefore a separate, exceptional post-decision process.

It should not be treated as an automatic second merits round.

The 2026 Rules Use a 32-Day Post-Judgment Transmission Period

This is a detail worth updating in any older Supreme Court procedure article.

Current Rule 45 provides that when a case comes from a federal court, a formal mandate ordinarily does not issue unless specially directed.^[1]

Instead, the Supreme Court Clerk sends the lower federal court:

• a copy of the opinion or order
• a certified copy of the judgment.^[1]

Under the rules effective March 16, 2026, those materials ordinarily are sent:

32 days after entry of judgment, unless the Court or a Justice changes the time or the parties stipulate to earlier issuance.^[1]

A timely rehearing petition affects that process under Rule 45.^[1]

This is not the same timeline as the court-of-appeals mandate discussed in INV-216 and INV-219.

Federal Supreme Court Cases Usually Do Not Get a Formal "Mandate" in the Same Way

Rule 45 contains a terminology trap.^[1]

For review from a federal court:

a formal Supreme Court mandate ordinarily does not issue.

The Clerk instead sends the opinion or order and a certified judgment.^[1]

That means a litigation tracker using one generic field called:

mandate date

can become confusing.

Better fields are:

• Supreme Court judgment date
• rehearing filed?
• rehearing disposition
• Rule 45 transmission/judgment issued to lower court
• lower-court action on remand.

Precision here prevents false claims that a case became operative on the wrong date.

Worked Example: Cert Granted Is Reported as a DOL Loss

Court grants review of a circuit decision that favored DOL.

Headline:

"Supreme Court overturns DOL retirement rule victory."

Wrong event.

The Court has not overturned anything merely by taking the case.

Correct:

"Supreme Court grants review of the circuit decision."

Then separately report:

• whether a stay exists
• whether the lower judgment remains operative
• when merits briefing begins.

Worked Example: The Court Grants Only One Question

Petition asks:

1. Did DOL exceed ERISA authority?
2. Was the rule arbitrary and capricious?
3. Was nationwide vacatur lawful?

Grant order says:

Petition granted limited to Question 1.

Article publishes:

"Supreme Court will decide DOL authority, APA reasonableness and nationwide remedy."

Too broad.

Only the accepted question is assured merits review.

The other issues may affect background or remedy arguments only to the extent properly connected to the granted question and Court practice.

Worked Example: A Trade Group Miscalculates Its Amicus Deadline

Petitioner merits brief filed:

September 1.

Trade group supporting petitioner plans to file on the respondent's later deadline.

Rule 37 generally gives the merits amicus:

seven days after the supported party's brief.^[1]

Waiting for the respondent's deadline can make the filing late.

The filing calendar needs a separate amicus field.

Worked Example: Oral Argument Is Treated as a Rule Change

DOL retirement case is argued.

Several Justices question DOL's statutory authority.

Recordkeeper memo says:

"Stop following the challenged rule."

No.

Argument has occurred.

No judgment has issued.

Unless another operative order changes the rule's status, oral argument is not a compliance event.

Worked Example: Reversal Is Treated as Complete Finality

Supreme Court says:

judgment reversed and case remanded.

Industry update says:

"Case finally closed."

The word:

remanded

says otherwise.

The controlling legal issue may be resolved.

The lower court still has work.

Track the remand docket.

A Practical Post-Grant Status Matrix

The mistake to avoid is turning any one row into:

everything is settled.

Post-Certiorari Review Checklist

Before publishing a status update on a DOL 401(k) Supreme Court case, verify:

Grant order

What petition was granted?

Was the grant limited?

Consolidation

Are related cases combined?

How much argument time was assigned?

Stay status

Did any court separately stay:

• the judgment
• the rule
• the mandate
• enforcement?

Briefing order

What are the actual merits deadlines?

Were extensions granted?

Question presented

What exact federal question is now before the Court?

Joint appendix

Was one filed?

Was printing dispensed with?

Amici

Who filed?

Which side is supported?

What distinct issue does the amicus add?

Oral argument

When did it occur?

Who argued for DOL or the federal government?

Disposition

Did the Court:

• affirm
• reverse
• vacate
• remand
• use another disposition?

Opinion structure

What is the controlling opinion?

What are separate concurrences or dissents?

Rehearing

Was a Rule 44 petition filed?

Rule 45 event

When was the judgment transmitted back to the lower federal court?

Remand

What did the lower court do next?

DOL implementation

Did the Department issue any:

• Federal Register notice
• guidance
• enforcement statement
• regulatory amendment?

Those are the fields that tell a compliance reader what actually changed.

Fast Answers

Does granting certiorari mean the Supreme Court agrees with the petitioner?

No.

What starts after a grant?

The merits phase.

Can the Court grant only one issue from a petition?

Yes.

Does a grant automatically stay the lower-court ruling?

No.

When is the petitioner's merits brief ordinarily due?

Within 45 days after the certiorari grant under Rule 25, unless the Court changes the schedule.^[1]

When is the respondent's merits brief ordinarily due?

Within 30 days after the petitioner's brief is filed.^[1]

What is the current principal merits-brief word limit?

13,000 words.^[1]

What is the current reply limit?

6,000 words.^[1]

What is the joint appendix?

A selected compilation of useful record material under Rule 26.^[1]

Can the Court dispense with printing it?

Yes. Perez provides a DOL example.^[6]

When are merits-stage amicus briefs ordinarily due?

Generally seven days after the supported party's brief.^[1]

Is every merits amicus limited to 8,000 words?

No. Current Rule 33 generally permits 8,000 for ordinary private amici and 9,000 for amici identified in Rule 37.6.^[1]

Who usually argues for DOL at the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court litigation for the federal government ordinarily runs through the Attorney General and Solicitor General framework under 28 U.S.C. 518.^[4]

How much oral-argument time does each side ordinarily receive?

30 minutes, unless the Court directs otherwise.^[1]

Can parties add new evidence at oral argument?

Oral argument is for legal argument and clarification; it does not create a new administrative record.

Did Perez involve ERISA?

No. It involved DOL's Wage and Hour Division and an APA question.^[9]

Why use Perez here?

It is a concrete DOL case showing grant, consolidation, merits briefing, oral argument and Supreme Court reversal.^[6][8][9]

Can the Supreme Court do more than affirm or reverse?

Yes. 28 U.S.C. 2106 also authorizes modification, vacatur, setting aside and remand.^[5]

Does reversal always end the case?

No. The Court can reverse and remand.

How long is the ordinary merits rehearing period?

25 days after the Supreme Court judgment or decision, subject to Rule 44's terms.^[1]

Does a formal Supreme Court mandate ordinarily issue to a federal court?

Not unless specially directed. Under current Rule 45, the Clerk ordinarily sends the opinion or order and certified judgment instead.^[1]

What is the current ordinary Rule 45 timing?

32 days after entry of judgment for a federal-court case, unless the timing is changed or rehearing affects it.^[1]

What is the safest one-sentence rule?

After certiorari is granted, track the accepted question, stay status, merits briefs, argument, disposition, rehearing, Rule 45 transmission and remand separately; none of those events should be treated as an automatic substitute for checking what DOL rule is actually operative.

Sources & References

1. Supreme Court of the United States: Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States — Effective March 16, 2026 — https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/2026RulesoftheCourt_WEB.pdf
2. Supreme Court of the United States: Rules and Guidance — https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/rules_guidance.aspx
3. Supreme Court of the United States: Guide for Counsel in Cases to Be Argued — https://www.supremecourt.gov/casehand/Guide%20for%20Counsel%202024.pdf
4. U.S. House of Representatives — Office of the Law Revision Counsel: 28 U.S.C. §518 — Conduct and Argument of Cases — https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A28+section%3A518+edition%3Aprelim%29
5. U.S. House of Representatives — Office of the Law Revision Counsel: 28 U.S.C. §2106 — Determination — https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2106
6. Supreme Court of the United States: Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association — Docket No. 13-1041 — https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=%2Fdocketfiles%2F13-1041.htm
7. Supreme Court of the United States: Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association — Question Presented — https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/13-01041qp.pdf
8. Supreme Court of the United States: Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association — Oral Argument Audio and Transcript, Dec. 1, 2014 — https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/13-1041
9. Supreme Court of the United States / United States Reports: Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. 92 (2015) — https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/575BV.pdf

Educational Disclaimer

ROIStreet publishes educational content about 401(k) plans, ERISA, Department of Labor regulation, federal appellate procedure and Supreme Court review. This article is not legal, fiduciary, tax, investment, litigation, appellate, jurisdictional or plan-administration advice. Supreme Court briefing schedules, granted questions, stays, argument allocations, judgment timing, rehearing, remand and the operative status of a DOL rule depend on the actual docket, current Court rules, lower-court orders and agency action. Current compliance obligations should be verified against controlling statutes, operative regulations, current court orders and current DOL materials.

The ROIStreet Reader Promise

We strive to explain before we evaluate, present evidence before opinions, discuss risks alongside potential benefits, distinguish facts from analysis, and correct material errors transparently.

Our purpose is to help readers better understand investing—not to tell them what to do.