Part 23 · Chapter 2

ERISA Preemption and State Law

Law stated as of October 3, 2026 · ERISA Disputes, Enforcement, Preemption, and Remedies

Scope and status

This chapter covers ERISA §514: the express-preemption architecture (relate-to, savings, deemer), complete preemption under §502, the full Supreme Court preemption canon (the working table every §514 analysis starts from), and the two live state-law fronts for multistate employer clients: post-Rutledge PBM regulation and state auto-IRA mandates.

Citations are to primary authority (ERISA §514; 29 U.S.C. §1144; and the Supreme Court and circuit case law). Related questions are treated elsewhere: §502 causes of action and remedies in this Part's litigation chapter; and health-plan-specific state overlays (surprise billing, MHPAEA state enforcement) in Part 15 (Health Plan Parity, CAA, and Transparency). Litigation strategy is reserved for litigation counsel.

Threshold framing. Run the four-step sequence in order: (1) Complete preemption (§502 removal analysis, Davila two-prong) — a jurisdictional doctrine distinct from §514; (2) §514(a) — does the state law have an impermissible "reference to" ERISA plans or an impermissible "connection with" them (interference with plan administration, structure, or benefit design)?; (3) Savings clause — if preempted under (a), is it saved as insurance regulation (Miller two-part test) — and note savings rescues the law only as applied to insured arrangements; (4) Deemer clause — a self-funded plan is not an insurer, so saved insurance laws still cannot reach it. The insured/self-funded split is therefore the single most consequential fact in any state-law question.

Sections

The opening sections of Part A are shown in full. The other sections are listed by title; their text is available to subscribers.

Part A — The §514 Architecture

A1.Express preemption, savings, deemer

Part 23, ch. 2, § A1

§514(a) preempts state laws that "relate to" an ERISA plan; §514(b)(2)(A) saves state laws regulating insurance, banking, or securities; §514(b)(2)(B) (the deemer clause) provides a self-funded plan is not deemed an insurer (but §514(b)(6) overrides the deemer clause for plan MEWAs — see the MEWA chapter of Part 13 (COBRA, HIPAA, and Welfare Benefits), Part C) — insulating self-funded plans from even saved insurance laws (FMC Corp. v. Holliday). "Relate to" has two branches: reference to (the law acts immediately and exclusively on ERISA plans or their existence is essential to its operation) and connection with (measured by ERISA's objectives — nationally uniform plan administration, benefit structure, and the §502 remedial exclusivity), with a working presumption against preempting traditional state regulation after Travelers. The Miller savings test: the law must be (1) specifically directed toward entities engaged in insurance, and (2) substantially affect risk pooling between insurer and insured. Statute: ERISA §514; Case law: Supreme Court — as tabulated in A3.

A2Complete preemption — §502 removalSubscribers
A3The Supreme Court canon — the working tableSubscribers

Part B — The Two Live State-Law Fronts

B1PBM regulation after Rutledge — the cost/structure lineSubscribers
B2State auto-IRA mandates — the multistate employer matrixSubscribers
B3Other recurring state-law overlaysSubscribers

The first Part of each chapter is open to everyone. The remaining sections, with their authority and practice points, are available to subscribers and to clients of ERISA Benefits Law Group, PLLC whose engagement includes access.