The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could make it dramatically harder — or easier — for millions of 401(k) savers to sue their employers over bad retirement-plan investments, in a dispute pitting Intel workers against the chipmaker's benefits committee.

Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee asks the justices to decide what plan participants must show to get an underperformance claim past a motion to dismiss. Lower courts have required workers to point to a "meaningful benchmark" — a comparable fund with a similar strategy and fee structure — before a lawsuit can even proceed to discovery. Intel's 401(k) plan at the center of the case steered money into a mix of hedge funds, private equity and commodities that workers say badly lagged a traditional stock-and-bond target-date fund over the same years.

The case has drawn an unusually heavy lobbying effort for a technical pleading-standard dispute. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Retirement Association filed briefs backing Intel, warning that a looser standard would unleash a wave of "strike suits" against plan fiduciaries. On the other side, the AARP and the American Association for Justice argue the benchmark rule has become an almost impossible bar that lets fiduciaries bury bad decisions in complexity. The Trump administration's solicitor general was granted rare permission to argue alongside Intel's lawyers, siding with the company.

Why it matters for your 401(k)

More than 70 million Americans hold money in 401(k)-style defined contribution plans, and lawsuits over fund menus have become one of the most active corners of employment litigation. A ruling that lowers the bar for ERISA breach-of-prudence claims could expose thousands of corporate plan sponsors — not just Intel — to new liability over alternative-asset bets that underperform conventional index funds.

THE QUESTION ISN'T WHETHER INTEL MADE A GOOD CALL. IT'S HOW MUCH PROOF A WORKER NEEDS JUST TO ASK A JUDGE TO LOOK.

Tuesday's argument covered familiar ground for ERISA litigators: how specific a complaint must be before a company has to open its books. Several justices pressed both sides on where exactly the line should sit, with the technical back-and-forth — laid out on the Court's October argument calendar — offering few hints at an outcome. A decision isn't expected until next year, but benefits attorneys on both sides say whichever way the Court rules will reshape how companies structure and defend their retirement plans for a decade.