U.S. states challenge Biden rule on socially conscious investing

[In It to Win It]

https://news.yahoo.com/u-states-challenge-biden-rule-150706839.html

(Reuters) - A coalition of 25 U.S. states led by Texas and Utah filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down a Biden administration rule allowing retirement plans to consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors such as climate change and racial justice when selecting investments.

The states filed a complaint in a federal court in Amarillo, Texas, on Thursday arguing that the rule finalized in November will lead many retirement plans to focus on a social agenda rather than long-term financial stability for investors.

The rule, which takes effect on Monday, reverses restrictions on socially conscious investing that were adopted by the Trump administration.

The states in Thursday's lawsuit said the new rule fails to justify the departure from Trump-era regulations, in violation of the federal law governing rulemaking.

The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee who has struck down Biden administration rules on immigration and healthcare protections for LGBT people.

The case is Utah v. Walsh, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, No. 2:23-cv-00016.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. F**k 'em. I'm sick to death of those same 25 states obstructing progress.

[Deuxcents]

2. Yes! If they do t want to participate..then don't.

Don’t want an abortion..then don’t. Don’t want to go to a drag queen show, then don’t. Don’t like the books, then don’t read em. Good fucking grief with these people.

[Igel]

3. My pension plan is through my employer.

I cannot not participate. I am restricted in the companies that actually manage the retirement funds and really don't want any of the ones my employer--a school district--has chosen. Yet there you go. I can't withdraw it because the money has to be funneled into the account through my employer. Federal law rules in this case, not what I think or you think.

At the same time, the complaint is fairly straightforward. That said, I have no idea how the courts will rule.

The complaint hinged on the 1974 ERISA, passed and signed into law democratically, a pension's investment managers are to comply with this:

1104. Fiduciary duties
(a) Prudent man standard of care
(1) Subject to sections 1103(c) and (d), 1342, and 1344 of this title, a fiduciary shall discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and—
(A) for the exclusive purpose of:
(i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and
(ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan;
(B) with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims;
(C) by diversifying the investments of the plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly prudent not to do so; and
(D) in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan insofar as such documents and instruments are consistent with the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III.