Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 22

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

9 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., 552 U. S. 248 
(2008)).  But precedent has said no such thing.  Quite the 
opposite: Russell explained that defined-benefit-plan bene-
ficiaries have a “common interest” in the “financial integ-
rity” of their defined-benefit plan.  473 U. S., at 142, n. 9. 

Neither Hughes nor LaRue suggests otherwise.  Hughes 
explained that a defined-benefit-plan beneficiary does not 
have “a claim to any particular asset that composes a part 
of the plan’s general asset pool.”  525 U. S., at 440.  But that 
statement concerned whether the beneficiaries had a legal 
right to extra payments after the plan’s assets grew.  Id., at 
436–437.  Whether a beneficiary has a legal claim to pay-
ment when a plan gains money says nothing about whether 
a  beneficiary  has  an  equitable  interest  to  restore  assets 
when  a  plan  loses  money.  Hughes,  in  fact,  invited  a  suit 
like  petitioners’:  The  Court  suggested  that  the  plaintiffs 
could have prevailed had they “allege[d] that [the employer] 
used any of the assets for a purpose other than to pay its 
obligations  to  the  Plan’s  beneficiaries.”    Id.,  at  442–443. 
Equally  telling  is  that  Hughes  resolved  the  beneficiaries’ 
breach-of-fiduciary claims on the merits without doubting 
whether the plaintiffs had standing to assert them. See id., 
at  443–446;  Steel  Co.  v.  Citizens  for  Better  Environment, 
523  U. S.  83,  94–95  (1998)  (explaining  this  Court’s  inde-
pendent duty to assure itself of Article III standing). 

LaRue  is  even  less  helpful  to  today’s  Court.  That  case 
involved a defined-contribution plan, not a defined-benefit 
plan.  552 U. S., at 250.  It was about remedies, not rights. 
See id., at 256.  And it stated that although “individual in-
juries”  may  occur  from  ERISA  plan  mismanagement,  the 
statutory provision at issue required that the remedy go to 
the plan.  Ibid. (discussing 29 U. S. C. §1132(a)(2)).  LaRue 
said  nothing  about  standing  and  nothing  about  ERISA’s