Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 31

18 

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

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

whole,” id., at 140.  Perhaps for this reason, and adding to 
the incongruity in today’s outcome, some Members of this 
Court have insisted that lawsuits to enforce ERISA’s fidu-
ciary duties “must” be brought “in a representative capac-
ity.”  Varity Corp., 516 U. S., at 516 (THOMAS, J., dissent-
ing) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Permitting  beneficiaries  to  enforce  their  plan’s  rights 
finds plenty of support in our constitutional case law.  Take 
associational standing: An association may file suit “to re-
dress its members’ injuries, even without a showing of in-
jury to the association itself.”  Food and Commercial Work-
ers,  517  U. S.,  at  552.    All  Article  III  requires  is  that  a 
member  “ ‘would  otherwise  have  standing  to  sue  in  their 
own right’ ” and that “ ‘the interests [the association] seeks 
to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose.’ ”  Id., 
at 553.  Petitioners’ suit here is the other side of the same 
coin: The plan would have standing to sue in its own right, 
and petitioners’ interest is to disgorge wrongful profits and 
reimburse the trust for losses, thereby preserving trust as-
sets held for their exclusive benefit. 

Next-friend  standing  is  another  apt  analog.    Long  “ac-
cepted [as  a] basis for jurisdiction,” this doctrine allows a 
party  to  “appear  in  [federal]  court  on  behalf  of  detained 
prisoners  who  are  unable  . . .  to  seek  relief  themselves.” 
Whitmore  v.  Arkansas,  495  U. S.  149,  162  (1990)  (tracing 
the doctrine’s roots to the 17th century).  Here, of course, 
petitioners’ plan cannot access the courts itself because the 
parties the Court thinks should file suit (the fiduciaries) are 
the defendants.  Like a “next friend,” moreover, petitioners 
are “dedicated to the best interests” of the party they seek 
to protect, id., at 163, because the plan’s interests are peti-
tioners’ interests.7 

—————— 

7 Other examples include guardians ad litem and, of course, trustees. 
E.g., Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U. S. 269,