M & G Polymers USA, LLC, Petitioners v. Hobert Freel Tackett

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Circuit’s reliance on the Yard‑Man decision to infer vested retiree health‑care benefits conflicts with ordinary contract law and therefore must be rejected. The Court vacated the appellate judgment and remanded for the lower court to apply traditional contract‑interpretation principles to determine whether the collective‑bargaining agreement created a vested right. The decision emphasizes that contract language governs and that courts must review such interpretations de novo.