Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A., 140 S. Ct. 1615

Background

Plaintiffs James Thole and Sherry Smith are retired, vested participants in U.S. Bank’s defined‑benefit pension plan and currently receive fixed monthly benefits that are contractually guaranteed for life.
They sued under ERISA alleging fiduciary breaches (disloyalty and imprudence) by plan managers for investments from 2007–2010, seeking restoration of approximately $750 million to the plan, injunctive relief (including removal of fiduciaries), and attorney’s fees.
The plan is a defined‑benefit plan (payments fixed to retirees), not a defined‑contribution plan (payments tied to account value), and plaintiffs have received all payments to date.
The District Court dismissed for lack of Article III standing; the Eighth Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court (Kavanaugh majority) affirmed, holding plaintiffs lack Article III standing because winning or losing would not change their future monthly benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing — injury in fact	Thole/Smith: plan losses and fiduciary breaches injure participants' equitable interest; suit seeks redress for plan harm	U.S. Bank: plaintiffs have suffered no concrete, personal injury; benefits are fixed so litigation outcome won't change plaintiffs' payments	No standing — plaintiffs lack a concrete stake because their vested payments would not change whether they win or lose
Trust‑law/property interest	Thole/Smith: ERISA trust creates equitable interest in plan assets; injuries to plan are injuries to beneficiaries	U.S. Bank: defined‑benefit participants do not hold property interests in plan assets like private‑trust beneficiaries; surplus/shortfalls affect employer/PBGC, not participants' fixed payments	Rejected plaintiffs' trust analogy; prior precedent (Hughes, LaRue) shows no equitable/proprietary stake for defined‑benefit participants in plan assets for standing purposes
Representative/derivative standing (sue on plan's behalf)	Thole/Smith: participants may sue to vindicate plan’s rights when fiduciaries (defendants) refuse to act	U.S. Bank: plaintiffs are not legal assignees or appointed representatives; representational standing cannot substitute for plaintiffs' own injury	Rejected: plaintiffs must show an injury in fact themselves; no assignment/appointment; ERISA cause of action does not by itself satisfy Article III injury requirement
Statutory cause of action and policy arguments	Thole/Smith: ERISA §§502(a)(2),(3) authorizes participants to sue and Congress intended private enforcement; denying standing undermines fiduciary policing	U.S. Bank: statutory authorization does not eliminate Article III requirements; regulatory and statutory enforcement (DOL, PBGC, employers, other fiduciaries, criminal laws) provide oversight	Rejected: statutory cause of action alone does not satisfy Article III; policy concerns insufficient to establish standing; court notes alternative enforcement mechanisms and an unpled ‘‘increased‑risk’’ theory was not asserted

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (statutory violations still require a concrete injury for Article III standing)
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 (defined‑benefit participants lack proprietary claim to particular plan assets)
LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., 552 U.S. 248 (ERISA remedies and relation of individual injuries to plan remedies)
Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (trust law informs but does not control ERISA interpretation)
Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 530 U.S. 238 (ERISA imposes trust‑like fiduciary duties and beneficiaries may seek restitution/disgorgement)
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (representational standing requires the litigant to have suffered an injury in fact)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (risk‑of‑harm standing principles)