The U.S. Supreme Court case Amgen Inc., et al., v. Steve Harris, et al., 2015 revolved around the issue of whether a company's fiduciaries had breached their duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by continuing to offer company stock as an investment option when they knew or should have known that it was overvalued and excessively risky. The plaintiffs were employees who participated in Amgen’s retirement savings plan and claimed that the defendants, who were fiduciaries for the plan, violated ERISA by offering Amgen common stock as an investment alternative when they knew or should have known that it was being sold at an artificially inflated price due to undisclosed improper business practices within the company. However, both district court and appeals court dismissed these claims stating there wasn't sufficient evidence provided to prove breach of duty on part of fiduciaries under ERISA guidelines. On appeal from Ninth Circuit ruling dismissing complaint without leave to amend, Supreme Court vacated judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of Fifth Third Bancorp v Dudenhoeffer decision which clarified standards for assessing such claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Amgen Inc., et al. v. Steve Harris, et al., Justice Thomas argued that the majority's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). He contended that fiduciaries are not required to act on inside information when making investment decisions, as it would be inconsistent with securities laws and could potentially harm investors by leading to premature disclosure of sensitive company information. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that a prudent fiduciary in the same circumstances would have made a different decision regarding public disclosures about stock investments. Instead, he believed this approach improperly focused on outcomes rather than processes and effectively imposed an unwarranted duty of clairvoyance upon fiduciaries.