A Biden-era US Department of Labor (DOL) Rule permitting consideration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors when choosing investments as a “tiebreaker” was recently upheld by Texas federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. This decision applied the US Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, revisiting three topics lost in 2025’s Department of Government Efficiency-era drama.

With a February 14 decision, Judge Kacsmaryk upheld the Biden-era Rule allowing retirement plan fiduciaries to consider ESG factors when choosing investments as a “tiebreaker.” In other words, when all other considerations for competing investments are equal. The court held that the Rule was in accordance with a strict reading of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The decision is available here.

Below, we break down the court’s decision and answer four questions on the minds of regulatory decisionmakers.

But first, some background. Until President Trump took office in January, ESG litigation, Loper Bright, and indeed, Judge Kacsmaryk were among our most chronicled topics:

• Past content referencing ESG litigation is here, here, and here.
• Here and here are discussions of the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo.
• We last discussed Judge Kacsmaryk here, here, and here.

What Is in the Rule?

The Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights Rule (Investment Duties Rule) was adopted in late 2022 and became effective on January 30, 2023. The DOL intended this rule to permit consideration of “climate change and other environmental, social, and governance factors” by plan investors “as they make decisions about how to best grow and protect” retirement savings, clarifying the duties of fiduciaries to ERISA employee benefits plans. The Biden Administration’s Rule neutralized a Trump-era Rule forbidding retirement plan fiduciaries from considering nonpecuniary factors — generally considered as factors that do not have a material effect on financial risk, financial return, or both — when making investment decisions.

In Texas federal court, 26 states and several other parties challenged the DOL’s Investment Duties Rule. After the case was filed, defendants moved to transfer the case to the US District Court for the District of Columbia or a district court where a plaintiff resided. The plaintiffs in turn amended their complaint to add the State of Oklahoma and Alex L. Fairly, an Amarillo, Texas, resident, as plaintiffs. After this amendment, a Texas federal court determined that the venue was proper.

What Is in the Decision?

The Valentine’s Day decision in Utah v. Micone, which began as Utah v. Walsh then Utah v. Su, came after a 2024 Fifth Circuit remand for reconsideration after the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright, which overruled precedent giving rise to “Chevron deference.” Chevron deference used to require a court to defer to the relevant agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute so long as the agency interpretation of the statute was reasonable. In Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron and held that courts must “exercise their independent judgment” when interpreting federal statutes and may not defer to agency interpretations simply because they determine that a statute is ambiguous.

Earlier, the initial Northern District of Texas ruling upheld the Biden-era Rule relying, in part, on Chevron deference, holding that the DOL’s interpretation of fiduciary duty provisions in ERISA was reasonable. On remand, the Fifth Circuit instructed the District Court to reconsider whether the Rule violated ERISA under a post-Chevron, Loper Bright analysis.

To some’s surprise (particularly considering another Northern District of Texas ruling issued days earlier, read more here), Judge Kacsmaryk again upheld the Rule as being in accordance with ERISA following remand. The opinion rejected Republican-state (and other) plaintiffs’ claim that the Investment Duties Rule’s nonpecuniary factor or tiebreaker provision violates ERISA’s text. The opinion explained that ERISA’s fiduciary provisions require that “a fiduciary must always discharge his duties in the interest of the beneficiary alone and only for the purpose of gaining financial benefit.” However, the provisions do not explicitly limit what a fiduciary may consider while discharging his or her duty.

Does Loper Bright Indicate the Executive Branch Always Loses?

The court stated that, under a strict textual reading, “ERISA’s text does not invalidate” tiebreaker provisions. In conclusion, Judge Kacsmaryk warns fiduciaries against letting impermissible considerations taint their decisions but further notes it is not the province of the court to decide the “wisest” outcome, ultimately holding that the Investment Duties Rule “does not permit a fiduciary to act for other interests than the beneficiaries’ or for other purposes than the beneficiaries’ financial benefit. For that reason, under the Loper Bright standard, it is not contrary to law.”

Despite the court’s cautioning and explicit reference to the replaced Trump-era Rule as potentially wise guidance, the decision remains significant. While narrow, the decision acts as a considerable example of a court approving the use of ESG principals and stands as a potential case study for the limited impact Loper Bright may have on agency deference decisions.

What Happens Next?

It is no secret that the Trump Administration does not support ESG investment considerations. Republicans have consistently stated that embracing ESG considerations ignores fiduciary duties, and both Florida and Texas have enacted laws prohibiting ESG considerations and banning money managers that engage in climate-action causes.

With the Biden-era Rule now affirmed at the District Court level, we see three paths forward for the Trump Administration: (1) stand back while plaintiffs potentially appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit, allowing another bite at the apple for overturning the Rule without executive action; (2) begin a DOL formal notice-and-comment rulemaking process to issue a new Rule, revoking and replacing the Investment Duties Rule promulgated in 2022; or (3) work through a less formal process, allowing agencies like the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration to use their sub-regulatory power to interpret law and make enforcement recommendations.

While the regulations do not carry legal weight in the same way a formal rule would, they can impact the actions and decisions those regulated take. There is certainly precedent for such an approach, provided by the 2022 DOL compliance assistance release, which warned against 401(k) investments into cryptocurrency and was upheld after a federal court challenge.

Whichever route is taken, we think it is unlikely the Trump Administration will allow the Rule to remain on the books into perpetuity.