254
Opinion of the Court
comment on House and Senate differences on § 409). Second, Salomon and amici submit that the policy consequences of recognizing a § 502(a)(3) action in this case could be devastating—counterparties, faced with the prospect of liability for dealing with a plan, may charge higher rates or, worse, refuse altogether to transact with plans.
We decline these suggestions to depart from the text of § 502(a)(3). In ERISA cases, "[a]s in any case of statutory construction, our analysis begins with the language of the statute. . . . And where the statutory language provides a clear answer, it ends there as well." Hughes Aircraft, 525 U. S., at 438 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Section 502(a)(3), as informed by § 502(l), satisfies this standard.
Accordingly, we reverse the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Page: Index Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Last modified: October 4, 2007