Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

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

Syllabus 

injuries to the plan where they themselves have not “suffered an injury
in fact,” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U. S. 693, 708, or been legally or 
contractually  appointed  to  represent  the  plan.    Third,  the  fact  that 
ERISA affords all participants—including defined-benefit plan partic-
ipants—a cause of action to sue does not satisfy the injury-in-fact re-
quirement here.  “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even 
in  the  context  of  a  statutory  violation.”    Spokeo,  Inc.  v.  Robins,  578 
U. S. ___, ___.  Fourth, the plaintiffs contend that meaningful regula-
tion of plan fiduciaries is possible only if they may sue to target per-
ceived fiduciary misconduct.  But this Court has long rejected that ar-
gument for Article III standing, see Valley Forge Christian College v. 
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 
464,  489,  and  defined-benefit  plans  are  regulated  and  monitored  in
multiple ways.
  The  plaintiffs’  amici  assert  that  defined-benefit  plan  participants
have  standing  to  sue  if  the plan’s  mismanagement  was  so  egregious
that it substantially increased the risk that the plan and the employer 
would fail and be unable to pay the participants’ future benefits.  The 
plaintiffs do not assert that theory of standing here, nor did their com-
plaint allege that level of mismanagement.  Pp. 2–8. 

 873 F. 3d 617, affirmed. 

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.  THOMAS, J., filed a 
concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a 
dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.