Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

21 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

III 
The Court also notes that “[e]ven if a defined-benefit plan
is mismanaged into plan termination, the federal [Pension 
Benefit  Guaranty  Corporation]  by  law  acts  as  a  backstop 
and  covers  the  vested  pension  benefits  up  to  a  certain 
amount and often in full.”  Ante, at 8, n. 2.  The Court then 
suggests that the only way beneficiaries of a mismanaged 
plan could sue is if their benefits were not “guaranteed in 
full by the PBGC.”  Ibid. 

Those statements underscore the problem in today’s de-
cision.  Whereas ERISA and petitioners’ Plan Document ex-
plicitly mandate that all plan assets be handled prudently
and loyally for petitioners’ exclusive benefit, the Court sug-
gests  that  beneficiaries  should  endure  disloyalty,  impru-
dence,  and  plan  mismanagement  so  long  as  the  Federal 
Government is there to pick up the bill when “the plan and 
the employer” “fail.”  Ibid. 

But the purpose of ERISA and fiduciary duties is to pre-
vent retirement-plan failure in the first place.  29 U. S. C. 
§1001.  In barely more than a decade, the country (indeed
the world) has experienced two unexpected financial crises
that  have  rocked  the  existence  and  stability  of  many  em-
ployers once thought incapable of failing.  ERISA deliber-
ately  provides  protection  regardless  whether  an  employer 
is on sound financial footing one day because it may not be
so stable the next.  See ibid.10 

The  Court’s  references  to  Government  insurance  also 
overlook sobering truths about the PBGC.  The Government 
Accountability Office recently relisted the PBGC as one of 
the  “High  Risk”  Government  programs  most  likely  to  be-
come  insolvent.    See  GAO,  Report  to  Congressional  Com-
mittees,  High-Risk  Series:  Substantial  Efforts  Needed  To 

—————— 

10 This also explains why a material risk of loss is not a prerequisite for
standing, least of all for retirees relying on their retirement plan for in-
come.  Cf. ante, at 7–8.