Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

THOLE ET AL. v. U. S. BANK N. A. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

No. 17–1712.  Argued January 13, 2020—Decided June 1, 2020 

Plaintiffs James Thole and Sherry Smith are retired participants in U. S.
Bank’s defined-benefit retirement plan, which guarantees them a fixed 
payment each month regardless of the plan’s value or its fiduciaries’ 
good  or  bad  investment  decisions.    Both  have  been  paid  all  of  their 
monthly pension benefits so far and are legally and contractually enti-
tled to those payments for the rest of their lives.  Nevertheless, they
filed a putative class-action suit against U. S. Bank and others (collec-
tively,  U. S.  Bank)  under  the  Employee  Retirement  Income  Security
Act  of  1974  (ERISA),  alleging  that  the  defendants  violated  ERISA’s
duties  of  loyalty  and  prudence  by  poorly  investing  the  plan’s  assets.
They request the repayment of approximately $750 million to the plan 
in losses suffered due to mismanagement; injunctive relief, including 
replacement of the plan’s fiduciaries; and attorney’s fees.  The District 
Court  dismissed  the  case,  and  the  Eighth  Circuit  affirmed  on  the 
ground that the plaintiffs lack statutory standing. 

Held: Because  Thole  and  Smith  have  no concrete  stake  in  the  lawsuit, 
they lack Article III standing.  See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 
U. S. 555, 560–561.  Win or lose, they would still receive the exact same 
monthly benefits they are already entitled to receive.  

None  of  the  plaintiffs’  arguments  suffices  to  establish  Article  III 
standing.  First, the plaintiffs rely on a trust analogy in arguing that
an ERISA participant has an equitable or property interest in the plan
and that injuries to the plan are therefore injuries to the participants. 
But participants in a defined-benefit plan are not similarly situated to
the  beneficiaries  of  a  private  trust  or  to  participants  in  a  defined-
contribution plan, and they possess no equitable or property interest in
the plan, see Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U. S. 432, 439–441. 
Second, the plaintiffs cannot assert representative standing based on