Surprising Ruling Upholds Biden's ESG Rule in Texas

In a surprising turn of events, a highly conservative federal district court in Texas, notorious for striking down Biden administration policies, has upheld a Biden administration rule governing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing in ERISA retirement plans.

The Court's Decision

Contrary to expectations, the court acknowledged that the Biden ESG rule, which replaced the Trump ESG rule, made little substantive change. This aligns with the arguments presented in an amicus brief filed by the Covington & Burling law firm. According to the brief, both rules embody the essence of the Supreme Court's Dudenhoeffer decision, which mandates that ERISA plan fiduciaries prioritize investment decisions solely for the purpose of maximizing risk-adjusted returns. Other objectives, regardless of their nobility, should not influence these decisions.

The Background

Earlier this year, 24 red state attorneys general and other plaintiffs filed lawsuits in Texas and Wisconsin federal courts against the Department of Labor in an attempt to block the Biden ESG rule. Their contention was that the rule violated the law by encouraging fiduciaries to select ESG investments based on ideological agendas rather than financial considerations.

The Basis for Similarity

The reason behind the striking resemblance between the Biden and Trump rules is rooted in the constraints imposed by ERISA, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer case of 2014. In a unanimous decision, the court explicitly stated that ERISA fiduciaries must make investment decisions exclusively with the goal of maximizing risk-adjusted returns.

Let us appreciate this unexpected ruling, where a traditionally conservative court upheld the Biden administration's ESG rule, affirming the principles outlined by the Supreme Court. The decision underscores the importance of prioritizing financial considerations in retirement plan investments while acknowledging the limited scope for other objectives.

Clarity in Investment Decision-making for Fiduciaries

In the realm of investment decision-making, the recent rules put forth by both the Biden and Trump administrations share a common ground — fiduciaries must base their decisions solely on factors related to risk and return. While the Biden rule allows for the consideration of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors, it emphasizes that their relevance should be analyzed within the context of risk-return analysis rather than as additional benefits. On the other hand, the Trump rule takes a negative approach, stating that ESG factors should not be considered unless they are pecuniary in nature.

However, the journey to these final rules was far from straightforward. Initially, the proposed rules from each administration presented starkly opposing views on the appropriateness of incorporating ESG factors in investment decisions.

The proposed Trump rule gave the impression that ESG factors would be entirely prohibited, although this turned out to be untrue. Similarly, the proposed Biden rule suggested that ESG factors would become a requirement, but this too was not the case. Ultimately, the influence of the Supreme Court's 2014 decision led to remarkably similar final rules.

To bring clarity to the ongoing ESG controversy, a recent decision in Texas established that fiduciaries governed by ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) have one primary responsibility — maximizing risk-adjusted returns. This goal can be pursued through various strategies: pro-ESG, anti-ESG, or those unrelated to ESG altogether. However, the driving force behind these decisions should always be the maximization of risk-adjusted returns, devoid of any collateral benefits.

It is worth noting that while the Texas decision brings clarity to ERISA plans, uncertainty still looms over state and local plans. Here, fiduciaries' capacity to optimize risk-adjusted returns may be limited by state-specific laws and pending bills concerning ESG investing. The landscape remains dynamic, with both pro-ESG and con-ESG perspectives awaiting further resolution.