Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

this suit would not affect their future benefit payments.  If 
Thole and Smith were to lose this lawsuit, they would still
receive  the  exact  same  monthly  benefits  that  they  are  al-
ready slated to receive, not a penny less.  If Thole and Smith 
were to win this lawsuit, they would still receive the exact 
same monthly benefits that they are already slated to re-
ceive, not a penny more.  The plaintiffs therefore have no
concrete stake in this lawsuit.  To be sure, their attorneys
have a stake in the lawsuit, but an “interest in attorney’s
fees is, of course, insufficient to create an Article III case or 
controversy where none exists on the merits of the underly-
ing claim.”  Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472, 
480 (1990); see Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 
523  U. S.  83,  107  (1998)  (same).    Because  the  plaintiffs
themselves have no concrete stake in the lawsuit, they lack 
Article III standing.  

* 

* 

* 
If Thole and Smith had not received their vested pension 
benefits, they would of course have Article III standing to 
sue and a cause of action under ERISA §502(a)(1)(B) to re-
See  29  U. S. C. 
cover  the  benefits  due  to  them. 
§1132(a)(1)(B).  But  Thole  and  Smith  have  received  all  of 
their monthly pension benefits so far, and they will receive
those same monthly payments for the rest of their lives. 

To nonetheless try to demonstrate their standing to chal-
lenge alleged plan mismanagement, the plaintiffs have ad-
vanced four alternative arguments. 

First, analogizing to trust law, Thole and Smith contend 
that  an  ERISA  defined-benefit  plan  participant  possesses
an  equitable  or  property  interest  in  the  plan,  meaning  in 
essence that injuries to the plan are by definition injuries
to the plan participants.  Thole and Smith contend, in other 
words, that a plan fiduciary’s breach of a trust-law duty of 
prudence or duty of loyalty itself harms ERISA defined-ben-
efit plan participants,  even if the participants themselves