Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 12

2 

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

THOMAS, J., concurring 

plaintiff ’s right to bring suit depending on the type of right 
the plaintiff sought to vindicate.”  Spokeo, 578 U. S., at ___ 
(THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2).  Rights were typi-
cally divided into private rights and public rights.  Private 
rights are those “ ‘belonging to individuals, considered as in-
dividuals.’ ”  Ibid. (quoting 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 
*2);  see  also  Woolhandler  &  Nelson,  Does  History  Defeat 
Standing Doctrine? 102 Mich. L. Rev. 689, 693 (2004).  Pub-
lic rights are “owed ‘to the whole community, considered as
a community, in its social aggregate capacity.’ ”  Spokeo, su-
pra, at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3) (quoting 
4 Blackstone, supra, at *5); see also Woolhandler & Nelson, 
supra, at 693. 

Petitioners  claim  violations  of  private  rights  under  the
Employee  Retirement  Income  Security  Act  of  1974 
(ERISA).  “In  a  suit  for  the  violation  of  a  private  right, 
courts  historically  presumed  that  the  plaintiff  suffered  a 
de facto injury [if] his personal, legal rights [were] invaded.” 
Spokeo, supra, at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 
2).  In this case, however, none of the rights identified by
petitioners belong to them.  The fiduciary duties created by
ERISA are owed to the plan, not petitioners.  See 29 U. S. C. 
§§1104(a)(1), 1105(a), 1106(a)(1), 1106(b), 1109(a).  As par-
ticipants in a defined benefit plan, petitioners have no legal 
or equitable ownership interest in the plan assets.  See ante, 
at 4.  There has been no assignment of the plan’s rights by 
ERISA or any contract.  See ante, at 5.  And petitioners can-
not rely on ERISA §502(a).  Although it establishes certain 
causes of action, it creates no private right.  See §1132(a).

There is thus no need to analogize petitioners’ complaint 
to trust law actions, derivative actions, qui tam actions, or 
anything  else.  We  need  only  recognize  that  the  private
rights that were allegedly violated do not belong to petition-
ers under ERISA or any contract.

Our  ERISA  precedents  have  especially  complicated  the