Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

to  pay  benefits  to  retirees,  the  federal  Pension  Benefit
Guaranty Corporation is required by law to pay the vested
pension benefits of the retirees, often in full.  The Depart-
ment of Labor is well positioned to understand the relation-
ship between plan failure and the PBGC because, by law,
the  PBGC  operates  within  the  Department  of  Labor,  and
the Secretary of Labor chairs the Board of the PBGC.  See 
ERISA §§4002(a), (d), 29 U. S. C. §§1302(a), (d).  On top of
all that, fiduciaries (including trustees who are fiduciaries) 
can sue other fiduciaries—and they would have good reason
to sue if, as Thole and Smith posit, one fiduciary were using 
the plan’s assets as a “personal piggybank.”  Brief for Peti-
tioners 2.  In addition, depending on the nature of the fidu-
ciary misconduct, state and federal criminal laws may ap-
ply.  See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §§664, 1954; ERISA §514(b)(4), 29 
U. S. C.  §1144(b)(4).    In  short,  under  ERISA,  fiduciaries 
who manage defined-benefit plans face a regulatory phal-
anx. 

In sum, none of the plaintiffs’ four theories supports their 

Article III standing in this case.

One  last  wrinkle  remains.  According  to  the  plaintiffs’ 
amici,  plan  participants  in  a  defined-benefit  plan  have
standing to sue if the mismanagement of the plan 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  pension  benefits.    Cf.  Clapper  v.  Am-
nesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414, n. 5 (2013); Lee v. Veri-
zon  Communications,  Inc.,  837  F.  3d  523,  545–546  (CA5
2016); David v. Alphin, 704 F. 3d 327, 336–338 (CA4 2013). 
But the plaintiffs do not assert that theory of standing in
this Court.  In any event, the plaintiffs’ complaint did not
plausibly  and  clearly  claim  that  the  alleged  mismanage-
ment of the plan substantially increased the risk that the
plan and the employer would fail and be unable to pay the
plaintiffs’ future pension benefits.  It is true that the plain-
tiffs’ complaint alleged that the plan was underfunded for a