This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioners, petitioners allege that the trustees, through disloyalty and imprudence, caused the trust to lose $750 million.
Respondents argue that participants in defined‑benefit plans have no ownership interest in the plan assets.
The Court notes that beneficiaries have historically been able to sue trustees for breach of trust, a right that is expressed in ERISA.
The Court denied a motion to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6).
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioners, the case concerns an alleged loss of $750 million from a trust due to trustees’ disloyalty and imprudence.
Respondents contend that participants in defined‑benefit plans do not have an interest in the plan assets.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the petitioners’ argument depends on a forward‑looking theory of injury.
According to Joseph R. PALMORE, petitioners’ counsel argued that, under ERISA, plaintiffs must demonstrate an injury, which the petitioners cannot do.
What each side argues
Petitioners
According to Joseph R. PALMORE, petitioners assert that there is no ERISA exception to Article III and that plaintiffs must show an injury, which they cannot demonstrate.
According to Mr. Palmore, petitioners note that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) may be relevant to the case.
Respondents
Respondents argue that participants in defined‑benefit plans have no interest in the plan assets.
Amicus (United States)
According to United States (amicus curiae), the United States amicus argues that when a trustee breaches fiduciary duties and causes losses, the trust suffers real harm.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the petitioners’ argument depends on a forward‑looking theory of injury.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch posed a hypothetical about whether a beneficiary could sue for a clean trustee’s actions affecting a dirty plan.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor clarified that the petitioners are seeking a payment to the plan, not a distribution to themselves.
Justice Gorsuch asked whether Congress could create a property interest for every beneficiary.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan raised concerns about the fluctuating funding status of plans across months.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh questioned whether a forward‑looking injury theory would mean a participant could never sue.
Justice Alito asked whether Congress can label anything as property.
- [1] a1f8e7cb3650e7808dcb-r1-e8ad065b81e81700.pdf, p. 6
- [2] a1f8e7cb3650e7808dcb-r1-e8ad065b81e81700.pdf, p. 24
- [3] a1f8e7cb3650e7808dcb-r1-e8ad065b81e81700.pdf, p. 44
- [4] a1f8e7cb3650e7808dcb-r1-e8ad065b81e81700.pdf, p. 45
- [5] a1f8e7cb3650e7808dcb-r1-e8ad065b81e81700.pdf, p. 65
- [6] a1f8e7cb3650e7808dcb-r1-e8ad065b81e81700.pdf, p. 67
- [7] a1f8e7cb3650e7808dcb-r1-e8ad065b81e81700.pdf, p. 71
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- a1f8e7cb3650e7808dcb-r1-e8ad065b81e81700.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.