520 U.S. 833 (1997)
Isaac Boggs began working for South Central Bell in 1949 and remained employed until his retirement in 1985.1 He was married to Dorothy Boggs from 1949 until her death in 1979, and the couple had three sons.2 After Dorothy died, Isaac married Sandra Boggs in 1980, and they remained married until Isaac's death in 1989.3
Upon retirement, Isaac received a lump-sum distribution of $151,628.94 from the Bell System Savings Plan, which he rolled over into an Individual Retirement Account worth $180,778.05 at his death.4 He also received 96 shares of AT&T stock from the Bell South Employee Stock Ownership Plan and a monthly annuity of $1,777.67 from the Bell South Service Retirement Program.5 Dorothy's will bequeathed one-third of her estate to Isaac outright along with a lifetime usufruct in the remaining two-thirds, with naked ownership passing to the sons.6 A 1980 Louisiana judgment of possession ascribed to Dorothy's estate a community property interest in Isaac's Savings Plan account valued at $21,194.29.7
After Isaac's death, Sandra began receiving a survivor annuity and other benefits.8 The sons filed suit in Louisiana state court claiming a portion of the retirement benefits under Dorothy's will and Louisiana community property law.9 Sandra then filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana asserting that ERISA preempts the sons' claims.10 The District Court granted summary judgment against Sandra.11 The Fifth Circuit affirmed.12 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.13
Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 preempts a state law allowing a nonparticipant spouse to transfer by testamentary instrument an interest in undistributed pension plan benefits?14
ERISA contains an express preemption clause.15 The Act shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.16 The statute further includes a pension plan anti-alienation provision.17 Benefits may not be assigned or alienated.18 The statute mandates that pension plans provide qualified joint and survivor annuities.19 This ensures a stream of income to surviving spouses.20 Waiver is permitted only under limited circumstances with spousal consent.21
Yes. ERISA preempts the state community property law because the sons' claims based on Dorothy's testamentary transfer directly conflict with the statute's anti-alienation rule and survivor annuity requirements.22 Isaac Boggs worked for South Central Bell from 1949 until retirement in 1985 and was married to Dorothy from 1949 until her death in 1979, during which time the pension benefits accrued.23 Upon retirement Isaac received a lump-sum distribution rolled into an IRA, 96 shares of AT&T stock, and a monthly annuity.
Dorothy's 1980 will and the Louisiana judgment of possession purported to transfer a community property interest in those undistributed benefits to the sons.24 Allowing enforcement of that interest would reduce the survivor annuity guaranteed to Sandra as the surviving spouse under the qualified joint and survivor annuity provisions.25 It would constitute an indirect assignment prohibited by the anti-alienation clause.26 The sons are neither participants nor beneficiaries under a qualified domestic relations order.27
ERISA preempts the state law allowing the nonparticipant spouse to transfer by testamentary instrument an interest in the undistributed pension plan benefits.
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by O'connor, J.
Justice Breyer dissented.28 He concluded that ERISA does not clearly preempt Louisiana community property law in the circumstances of this case.29 The state law addresses traditional areas of family property and probate.30
These areas carry a presumption against preemption.31 The accounting sought by the sons could be satisfied from non-pension community assets.32 This would occur without diminishing the survivor annuity payable to Sandra.33
Breyer noted that the QDRO provisions regulate transfers upon divorce or separation.34 They do not address testamentary dispositions after death.35 ERISA's purposes would not be frustrated where the second spouse receives the full annuity Congress guaranteed her.36