In the case of Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corporation et al., 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The PBGC had argued that it was within its rights to restore terminated pension plans if it determined that this would better protect the insurance program from long-term loss. This came after LTV Corp, a steel and aerospace company, filed for bankruptcy and attempted to terminate their existing pension plans under ERISA regulations while creating new ones with less benefits for employees. The court found that PBGC's decision to restore previously terminated pensions did not violate any Administrative Procedure Act as claimed by LTV Corp because they were simply exercising their statutory authority granted by Congress under Title IV of ERISA.

In the dissenting opinion for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corporation et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). He believed that PBGC had acted within its statutory authority when it restored terminated pension plans following LTV's reorganization in bankruptcy. According to him, nothing in ERISA prohibited PBGC from taking such action if it determined that restoration would better protect the insurance program and affected employees' interests than termination. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that PBGC had violated APA (Administrative Procedure Act) procedural requirements by not providing adequate notice or opportunity for comment before restoring the plans. He contended that these procedures were not required because PBGC’s action was committed to agency discretion by law and therefore exempted from APA rulemaking requirements.