In a stunning upset for the U.S. Department of Labor, a federal court granted a stay of the agency’s fiduciary rule on Friday, while the court decides on whether or not to vacate the entire regulation.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Forth Worth Division, said insurance industry plaintiffs led by the American Council of Life Insurers had met all the requirements for a stay, including showing that they have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their case.

The court also said that the DOL overshot its Congressional authority, which was granted by ERISA, by trying to regulate brokers and insurance agents as fiduciaries and demonstrated that the rule would create irreparable harm.

The rule, which the DOL issued on April 25, expanded the definition of who is a fiduciary to include anyone who renders investment advice, directly or indirectly, for compensation, including for first-time brokers and insurance agents and those who offer one-time only advice. Fiduciaries are required to meet a host of requirements, including ensuring that advice is in customers’ best interest. A similar 2016 rule was vacated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018.

“As a whole, the DOL’s arguments are nothing more than an attempt to relitigate the Chamber decision” which vacated the DOL’s 2016 rule, the court wrote in its decision granting the stay. “Not only is the Rule likely unlawful, it also likely to cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.”

The court said that Congress tied its definition of fiduciary status in ERISA to “advice for a fee,” but purposely excluded sales from the fiduciary standard. “The Fifth Circuit explained this ... important distinction between insurance agents and brokers—who are compensated only for completed sales—and investment advisors, who are paid fees because they render advice.” The new DOL rule “overrides this important distinction.”

The court also said that the rule exceeds the DOL’s administrative authority and is therefore “arbitrary and capricious.”

A DOL spokesman contacted for comment said, “When investors get advice from a trusted financial professional about their retirement savings, they expect that advice to be in the customer’s best interest, not the financial professional’s. This rule makes that a reality.

The department continues to believe that this rule is essential to ensuring that retirement investors are protected.”

The decision casts a dark cloud over the DOL’s likelihood of success in defending the new rule.

The plaintiffs said in a joint statement, “We are grateful to the court for its decision to issue a stay halting the September 23, 2024, effective date of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary-only regulation, the DOL’s latest attempt to vastly expand its statutory authority by imposing fiduciary status on almost every financial professional who sells retirement products,”

The plaintiffs are The American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA), NAIFA-Texas, NAIFA-Dallas, NAIFA-Fort Worth, NAIFA-POET, Finseca, the Insured Retirement Institute (IRI), and the National Association for Fixed Annuities (NAFA).

“If allowed to take effect, this rule would deprive millions of consumers access to much needed retirement financial guidance and protected lifetime income products, replicating the considerable harm suffered under a similar 2016 DOL regulation vacated by a federal court in 2018,” the industry trade groups said.

The Financial Services Institute (FSI) and Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), which filed a separate federal lawsuit on June 28 seeking to vacate the fiduciary rule, welcomed the court’s decision to stay implementation of the rule while the panel deliberates the case to vacate the rule entirely.

“Today’s decision rightly prevents the Department of Labor’s rule from taking effect as the court continues to weigh the merits of the case. The finalized rule unlawfully expands the definition of a ‘fiduciary’ and jeopardizes investors’ access to advice and education,” FSI and SIFMA said in a joint statement.

The DOL did not immediately respond to a request for comment.