Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 28

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

15 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

U. S. 728 (1984), for instance, this Court recognized a plain-
tiff ’s standing to assert a “noneconomic” injury for discrim-
inatory  distribution  of  his  Social  Security  benefits,  even 
though he did not have “a substantive right to any particu-
lar amount of benefits.”  Id., at 737, 739.  Petitioners’ stand-
ing here is even sturdier: They assert a noneconomic injury 
for unlawful management of their retirement plan and, un-
like the plaintiff in Heckler, petitioners do have a substan-
tive right to a particular amount of benefits.  Cf. ante, at 2 
(acknowledging that petitioners’ benefits are “vested” and 
that payments are “legally and contractually” required). 

None of this is disputed.  In fact, the Court seems to con-
cede  all  this  reasoning  in  a  footnote.    See ante,  at  6,  n. 1. 
The Court appears to acknowledge that an ERISA benefi-
ciary’s noneconomic right to information from the fiduciar-
ies  would  support  standing.    See  ibid.  (citing  29  U. S. C. 
§1132(a)(1)(A)).  Yet the Court offers no reason to think that 
a beneficiary’s noneconomic right  to loyalty and prudence
from the fiduciaries is meaningfully different. 

For its part, the concurrence attempts to fill the Court’s
gaps  by  adding  that  “[t]he  fiduciary  duties  created  by 
ERISA  are  owed  to  the  plan,  not  petitioners.”    Ante,  at  2 
(opinion of THOMAS, J.). But this Court has already rejected 

—————— 
concerning the availability of housing,” Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 
455 U. S. 363, 373 (1982); esthetic and recreational interests, Friends of 
the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 
167, 181–182 (2000); “information which must be publicly disclosed pur-
suant to a statute,” Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U. S. 11, 21 
(1998); one’s “personal, political, and professional reputation,” Meese v. 
Keene,  481  U. S.  465,  473  (1987);  and  the  right  to  speak,  Spokeo,  578 
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 9) (citing Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 
U. S. 460 (2009)).  This Court has even said that a for-profit business has
standing to assert religious injuries.  See Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 
Inc., 573 U. S. 682, 715, and n. 26 (2014).  Today’s Court does not recon-
cile these cases with its novel financial-harm requirement; nor does the
Court  explain  why  a  breach  of  fiduciary  duty  is  less  concrete  than  the 
injuries listed above.