Tess Gee was quoted regarding the Supreme Court's recent decision finding that pension plans maintained by faith-based organizations qualify as "church plans." However, the Court did not specify whether the three hospitals that brought the challenge are indeed faith-based organizations. "These cases are not over at all for these hospitals," Gee said. The plaintiffs' next stage will be to determine if the hospital boards or plan committees fit within that principal-purpose definition and to show they are affiliated with a religious organization, she said, adding that while these determinations are legal, in part, they are very much fact-based and will have to be litigated on a case-by-case basis. "[Justice Elena] Kagan noted twice in separate footnotes that these were issues expressly not being addressed by the court. They were assuming committees for these three plans were principal-purpose organizations, but the issue will still have to be decided before a lower court," Gee said. An additional takeaway from the decision is if a sponsor of a plan thinks it falls within the church plan definition, and has gotten a determination letter from Internal Revenue Service (IRS), it doesn't really count for much, she said. "The Supreme Court made it clear it was not giving deference to government analyses of decisions. The IRS letters do say committees are principal-purpose organizations, but this isn't expected to be given much weight in lower courts; the courts will look beyond what has been decided in the past." Plan sponsors that believe their plan is exempt but have no IRS letter are no worse off, because the issues will be reviewed de novo. "Plan sponsors should review the entity that is maintaining the plan and go through what the church plan exemption requires with respect to the principal-purpose organization definition to see if it satisfies the definition," she said.