Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 16

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

3 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

exercise  lucrative  stock  options  to  their  own  (and  their
shareholders’) benefit.

Then came the Great Recession.  In 2008, the retirement 
plan  lost  $1.1  billion,  allegedly  $748  million  more  than  a 
properly  managed  plan  would  have  lost.    So  some  of  the 
plan’s participants sued under 29 U. S. C. §1132(a) for the
relief  Congress  contemplated:  restoration  of  losses,  dis-
gorgement  of  respondents’  ill-gotten  profits  and  fees,  re-
moval of the disloyal fiduciaries, and an injunction to stop
the ongoing breaches.  Faced with this lawsuit, respondents 
returned  to  the  plan  about  $311  million  (less  than  half 
of what the plan had lost) and none of the profits respond-
ents  had  unlawfully  gained.  See  873  F. 3d  617,  630–631 
(CA8 2018). 

II 
In the Court’s words, the question here is whether peti-
tioners have alleged a “concrete” injury to support their con-
stitutional  standing  to  sue.  Ante,  at  3.  They  have  for  at 
least three independent reasons. 

A 
First,  petitioners  have  an  interest  in  their  retirement
plan’s financial integrity, exactly like private trust benefi-
ciaries  have  in  protecting  their  trust.  By  alleging  a  $750
million injury to that interest, petitioners have established 
their standing. 

1 
This Court typically recognizes an “injury in fact” where
the alleged harm “has a close relationship to” one “that has 
traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a law-
suit in English or American courts.”  Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 
578  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2016)  (slip  op.,  at  9).    Thus,  the  Court 
acknowledges that “private trust” beneficiaries have stand-
ing to protect the assets in which they have an “equitable”
interest.  Ante,  at  3–4.    The  critical  question,  then,  is