CIGNA Corp. v. Amara
| CIGNA Corp. v. Amara | |
|---|---|
| Decided May 16, 2011 | |
| Full case name | CIGNA Corp. v. Amara |
| Citations | 563 U.S. 421 (more) |
| Holding | |
| The district court did not have authority under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA to reform CIGNA's pension plan, but Section 502(a)(3) did give the court that authority. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Scalia (in judgment), joined by Thomas |
| Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 | |
CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal district court did not have authority under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA to reform CIGNA's pension plan, but Section 502(a)(3) did give the court that authority.