Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

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

13 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

risk that the plan and the employer would fail and be una-
ble to pay the plaintiffs’ future pension benefits,” ante, at 7. 
The  first  observation  is  incorrect  for  the  reasons  stated 
above.  But  even  were  the  Court  correct  that  petitioners’
rights do not sound in trust law, petitioners would still have 
standing.  The Court reasons that petitioners have an en-
forceable  right  to  “monthly  payments  for  the  rest  of  their
lives”  because  their  plan  confers  a  “contractua[l]  enti-
tle[ment].”  Ante, at 2.  Under that view, the plan also con-
fers contractual rights to loyal and prudent plan manage-
ment.  See App. 60–61; 29 U. S. C. §§1104, 1109. 

Thus, for the same reason petitioners could bring suit if
they did not receive payments from their plan, they could 
bring suit if they did not receive loyalty and prudence from
their fiduciaries.  After all, it is well settled that breach of 
“a  contract  to  act  diligently  and  skil[l]fully”  provides  a
“groun[d] of action” in federal court.  Wilcox v. Executors of 
Plummer, 4 Pet. 172, 181–182 (1830).  It is also undisputed 
that “[a] breach of contract always creates a right of action,”
even when no financial “harm was caused.”  Restatement 
(First)  of  Contracts  §328,  and  Comment  a,  pp.  502–503 
(1932); see also Spokeo, 578 U. S., at ___–___ (THOMAS, J., 
concurring)  (slip  op.,  at  2–3)  (“[C]ourts  historically  pre-
sumed  that  the  plaintiff  suffered  a  de  facto  injury  merely
from having his personal, legal rights invaded” even with-
out  any  “allegation  of  damages”).    Petitioners  would  thus 
have standing even were they to accept the Court’s flawed 
premise.

The Court’s second statement, that petitioners have not 
alleged a substantial risk of missed payments, ante, at 7, is 
orthogonal  to  the  issues  at  hand.   A  breach-of-fiduciary-
duty  claim  exists  regardless  of  the  beneficiary’s  personal 
gain,  loss,  or  recovery.    In  rejecting  petitioners’  standing 
and maintaining that “this suit would not change [petition-
ers’] monthly pension benefits,” ante, at 8, the Court fails to