InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

The Court held that participants in a defined-benefit retirement plan, who were guaranteed a fixed monthly payment regardless of the plan's value or investment decisions, lacked Article III standing to sue the plan's fiduciaries under ERISA.· AI-written

140 S. Ct. 1615 · No. 17-1712 · 2019 term · Roberts Court

Decided Jun 1, 2020 · argued Jan 13, 2020

Economic activity · Employee Retirement Income Security Act

Majority opinion: Brett Kavanaugh

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Affirmed. Thole lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Thole was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 590 U.S. 538 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that participants in a defined-benefit retirement plan who are guaranteed a fixed payment each month regardless of the plan’s value or its fiduciaries' investment decisions lack Article III standing to bring a lawsuit against the fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2019 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianSotomayorGinsburgBreyerKaganJ. RobertsKavanaughGorsuchAlitoThomas

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
TholeInvestor
Respondent
U.S. Bank, N.A.Bank, savings and loan, credit union, investment company
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
Kind of law
Constitution
Decided by
Judicial review (national level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 1, 2020DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. Thole lost.
  2. Jan 13, 2020ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Minnesota U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

47 other argued cases since 1946 on employee Retirement Income Security Act, newest first.

  1. M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the Iam National Pension Fund146 S. Ct. 1224May 21, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 1224Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  2. Cunningham v. Cornell University145 S. Ct. 1020Apr 17, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 1020Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  3. Hughes v. Northwestern University142 S. Ct. 737Jan 24, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 737Economic activity8–0Unanimous band

  4. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma140 S. Ct. 768Feb 26, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 768Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  5. Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander140 S. Ct. 592Jan 14, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 592Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  6. Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton137 S. Ct. 1652Jun 5, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1652Economic activity8–0Unanimous band

  7. Montanile v. Bd. of National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan577 U.S. 136Jan 20, 2016 · 577 U.S. 136Economic activity8–18–1 band

  8. Tibble v. Edison International575 U.S. 523May 18, 2015 · 575 U.S. 523Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  9. M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett574 U.S. 427Jan 26, 2015 · 574 U.S. 427Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  10. Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer573 U.S. 409Jun 25, 2014 · 573 U.S. 409Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  11. Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.571 U.S. 99Dec 16, 2013 · 571 U.S. 99Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  12. US Airways, Inc., in Its Capacity As Fiduciary and Plan Administrator of the US Airways, Inc. Employee Benefits Plan, Petitioner v. James E. McCutchen et al.569 U.S. 88Apr 16, 2013 · 569 U.S. 88Economic activity5–45–4 band

  13. Cigna Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Janice C. Amara, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated563 U.S. 421May 16, 2011 · 563 U.S. 421Economic activity8–0Unanimous band

  14. Sally L. Conkright, et al. v. Paul J. Frommert et al.559 U.S. 506Apr 21, 2010 · 559 U.S. 506Economic activity5–36–3 band

  15. Kari E. Kennedy, Executrix of the Estate of William Patrick Kennedy, Deceased v. Plan Administrator for Dupont Savings and Investment Plan et al.555 U.S. 285Jan 26, 2009 · 555 U.S. 285Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  16. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn554 U.S. 105Jun 19, 2008 · 554 U.S. 105Economic activity6–36–3 band

  17. Jeffrey H. Beck, Liquidating Trustee of the Estates of Crown Vantage, Inc. and Crown Paper Company v. Pace International Union et al.551 U.S. 96Jun 11, 2007 · 551 U.S. 96Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  18. Joel Sereboff, et ux. v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.547 U.S. 356May 15, 2006 · 547 U.S. 356Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  19. Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Thomas E. Heinz et al.541 U.S. 739Jun 7, 2004 · 541 U.S. 739Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  20. Raymond B. Yates, M.D., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan, and Raymond B. Yates, Trustee v. William T. Hendon, Trustee541 U.S. 1Mar 2, 2004 · 541 U.S. 1Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  21. The Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Kenneth L. Nord538 U.S. 822May 27, 2003 · 538 U.S. 822Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  22. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company, et al. v. Janette Knudson and Eric Knudson534 U.S. 204Jan 8, 2002 · 534 U.S. 204Economic activity5–45–4 band
  23. Harris Trust and Savings Bank, etc., et al. v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., et al.530 U.S. 238Jun 12, 2000 · 530 U.S. 238Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  24. Lori Pegram, et al. v. Cynthia Herdrich530 U.S. 211Jun 12, 2000 · 530 U.S. 211Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  25. Unum Life Insurance Company of America v. John E. Ward526 U.S. 358Apr 20, 1999 · 526 U.S. 358Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  26. Hughes Aircraft Company, et al. v. Stanley I. Jacobson et al.525 U.S. 432Jan 25, 1999 · 525 U.S. 432Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  27. Bonnie L. Geissal, Beneficiary and Representative of the Estate of James W. Geissal, Deceased v. Moore Medical Corporation et al.524 U.S. 74Jun 8, 1998 · 524 U.S. 74Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  28. Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corporation of California, Inc., and Stephen Barnes522 U.S. 192Dec 15, 1997 · 522 U.S. 192Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  29. Inter-Modal Rail Employees Association, et al. v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al.520 U.S. 510May 12, 1997 · 520 U.S. 510Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  30. Lockheed Corporation, et al. v. Paul L. Spink517 U.S. 882Jun 10, 1996 · 517 U.S. 882Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  31. Varity Corporation v. Charles Howe et al.516 U.S. 489Mar 19, 1996 · 516 U.S. 489Economic activity6–36–3 band
  32. D. Grant Peacock v. Jack L. Thomas516 U.S. 349Feb 21, 1996 · 516 U.S. 349Economic activity8–18–1 band
  33. Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. Frank C. Schoonejongen, et al.514 U.S. 73Mar 6, 1995 · 514 U.S. 73Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  34. Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company and Stroh Brewery Company513 U.S. 414Feb 21, 1995 · 513 U.S. 414Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  35. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Harris Trust and Savings Bank, As Trustee of the Sperry Master Retirement Trust No. 2510 U.S. 86Dec 13, 1993 · 510 U.S. 86Economic activity6–36–3 band
  36. Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California508 U.S. 602Jun 14, 1993 · 508 U.S. 602Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  37. William J. Mertens, Alex W. Bandrowski, James A. Clark, and Russell Franz v. Hewitt Associates508 U.S. 248Jun 1, 1993 · 508 U.S. 248Economic activity5–45–4 band
  38. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al. v. Robert T. Darden503 U.S. 318Mar 24, 1992 · 503 U.S. 318Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  39. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corporation et al.496 U.S. 633Jun 18, 1990 · 496 U.S. 633Economic activity8–18–1 band
  40. Mead Corp. v. Tilley et al.490 U.S. 714Jun 5, 1989 · 490 U.S. 714Economic activity8–18–1 band
  41. Massachusetts v. Morash490 U.S. 107Apr 18, 1989 · 490 U.S. 107Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  42. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. et al. v. Bruch et al.489 U.S. 101Feb 21, 1989 · 489 U.S. 101Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  43. Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California et al. v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., Inc.484 U.S. 539Feb 23, 1988 · 484 U.S. 539Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
  44. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. et al. v. Russell473 U.S. 134Jun 27, 1985 · 473 U.S. 134Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  45. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R. A. Gray & Co.467 U.S. 717Jun 18, 1984 · 467 U.S. 717Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  46. Alessi et al. v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., et al.451 U.S. 504May 18, 1981 · 451 U.S. 504Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
  47. Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation et al.446 U.S. 359May 12, 1980 · 446 U.S. 359Economic activity5–45–4 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.