Board of Trustees of the Glazing Health & Welfare Trust v. Chambers, 168 F. Supp. 3d 1320

Plaintiffs are trustees of multiemployer (Taft‑Hartley/ERISA) employee benefit trusts that collect and distribute fringe benefits for union members.
Nevada amended NRS 608.150 via Senate Bill 223 (SB223), adding provisions that explicitly refer to and impose duties involving Taft‑Hartley/ERISA benefit trusts (e.g., notice and information requirements to trustees).
Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaration that SB223 is pre‑empted in its entirety by ERISA; the case was decided on cross‑motions for summary judgment.
The court considered whether SB223 "relates to" ERISA plans under ERISA § 514(a) and applicable Ninth Circuit tests for connection with plans.
The court also analyzed whether, if parts of SB223 were pre‑empted, the remainder of the statute was severable under Nevada law and legislative intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SB223 is pre‑empted by ERISA § 514(a)	SB223 references and regulates Taft‑Hartley/ERISA trusts and thus "relates to" ERISA plans and is pre‑empted	The statute is a labor‑law enforcement measure regulating contractor/subcontractor liability, not ERISA plans, so it is not pre‑empted	The court held SB223 is pre‑empted: it expressly references ERISA plans and imposes reporting/notice duties affecting plan‑employer relationships
Whether the pre‑empted portions are severable from SB223	Even if parts are pre‑empted, severing would leave valid provisions intact (e.g., shortened limitations)	The amendments were enacted as an integrated package; legislature did not include a severability clause specific to these changes	The court held the pre‑empted provisions are not severable; because the amendments were intended to operate together, the entire SB223 is pre‑empted

Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825 (state laws that reference or are designed to affect ERISA plans are preempted)
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (ERISA’s preemption displaces state laws within its sphere)
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (a law "relates to" an ERISA plan if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan)
NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., 453 U.S. 322 (Taft‑Hartley trusts are employee benefit trusts governed by ERISA)
Greater Washington Bd. of Trade v. United States, 506 U.S. 125 (existence of ERISA plans essential to operation of a state law supports preemption)
Ingersoll‑Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (state law reference to ERISA plans can trigger preemption)
McBride v. PLM Int’l, Inc., 179 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. test for whether a state law has a connection with ERISA plans)