Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

6 

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

Opinion of the Court 

ing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a stat-
utory violation.”  Spokeo, 578 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 9). 
Here, the plaintiffs have failed to plausibly and clearly al-
lege a concrete injury.1 

Fourth, Thole and Smith contend that if defined-benefit 
plan participants may not sue to target perceived fiduciary 
misconduct, no one will meaningfully regulate plan fiduci-
aries.  For that reason, the plaintiffs suggest that defined-
benefit plan participants must have standing to sue.  But 
this Court has long rejected that kind of argument for Arti-
cle  III  standing.    See  Valley  Forge  Christian  College  v. 
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 
454 U. S. 464, 489 (1982) (the “ ‘assumption that if respond-
ents have no standing to sue, no one would have standing, 
is  not  a  reason  to  find  standing’ ”)  (quoting  Schlesinger  v. 
Reservists  Comm.  to  Stop  the  War,  418  U. S.  208,  227 
(1974)).

In any event, the argument rests on a faulty premise in
this  case  because  defined-benefit  plans  are  regulated  and 
monitored in multiple ways.  To begin with, employers and
their  shareholders  often  possess  strong  incentives  to  root
out  fiduciary  misconduct  because  the  employers  are  enti-
tled to the plan surplus and are often on the hook for plan 
shortfalls.  Therefore,  about  the  last  thing  a  rational  em-
ployer wants or needs is a mismanaged retirement plan.  Cf. 
ERISA §4062(a), 29 U. S. C. §1362(a).  Moreover, ERISA ex-
pressly  authorizes  the  Department  of  Labor  to  enforce 
ERISA’s  fiduciary  obligations.  See  ERISA  §502(a)(2),  29 
U. S. C.  §1132(a)(2).    And  the  Department  of  Labor  has  a 
substantial motive to aggressively pursue fiduciary miscon-
duct, particularly to avoid the financial burden of failed de-
fined-benefit plans being backloaded onto the Federal Gov-
ernment.  When a defined-benefit plan fails and is unable 

—————— 

1 To be clear, our decision today does not concern suits to obtain plan
information.  See, e.g., ERISA §502(a)(1)(A), 29 U. S. C. §1132(a)(1)(A).