Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

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

25 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

basis for standing.  As the Court appears to admit, its focus 
on fees is about optics, not law.  See ante, at 3 (acknowledg-
ing  that  attorney’s  fees  do  not  advance  the  standing  in-
quiry).

The Court’s aside about attorneys is not only misplaced,
it is also mistaken.  Missing from the Court’s opinion is any 
recognition that Congress found private enforcement suits 
and  fiduciary  duties  critical  to  policing  retirement  plans; 
that it was after this litigation was initiated that respond-
ents restored $311 million to the plan in compliance with
statutorily required funding levels; and that counsel justi-
fied their fee request as a below-market percentage of the
$311 million employer infusion that this lawsuit allegedly 
precipitated. 

* 

* 

* 

The Constitution, the common law, and the Court’s cases 
confirm  what  common  sense  tells  us:  People  may  protect 
their  pensions.  “Courts,”  the  majority  surmises,  “some-
times make standing law more complicated than it needs to 
be.”  Ante, at 8.  Indeed.  Only by overruling, ignoring, or
misstating  centuries  of  law  could  the  Court  hold  that  the 
Constitution  requires  beneficiaries  to  watch  idly  as  their
supposed fiduciaries misappropriate their pension funds.  I 
respectfully dissent.