Individuals and states have tried — three times — to wipe the Affordable Care Act off the books. The Supreme Court — for the third time — rejected those efforts. In a lopsided 7-2 opinion, the Court held that individual plaintiffs and states seeking to strike down the Act lacked “standing,” or the…
Jun 17, 2021
The United States Supreme Court rejected the third major challenge to the
Affordable Care Act, holding in a 7-2 decision that the challengers did not have “standing,” or the legal right to challenge the portions of the ACA they alleged were unconstitutional.
Jun 17, 2021
Statement on Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act from AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack.
Nov 4, 2020
The Supreme Court of the United States Nov. 10, 2020, heard oral arguments in the case
of California v. Texas, in which those opposed to the Affordable Care Act contend that when Congress set the tax penalty for failing to purchase insurance at zero dollars, the ACA’s requirement that most…
Sep 22, 2020
AHA General Counsel Melinda Hatton interviews Cate Stetson, acclaimed advocate and leader of the appellate practice at Hogan Lovells, about the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy and what it means for the legal challenges facing the
Affordable Care Act and other legal cases that matter to hospitals and…
Sep 21, 2020
This Special Bulletin informs the members of AHA’s video discussion of the new U.S. Supreme Court vacancy.
Jun 26, 2020
The Department of Justice urged the Supreme Court to strike down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, including its protections for pre-existing conditions and expansion of the Medicaid
program.
Jun 26, 2020
More than 892,000 consumers in states using the HealthCare.gov platform gained 2020 coverage since the end of open enrollment through May by using a Special Enrollment Period, a 27% increase from the same period last year, according to a report released by the Centers for Medicare…
May 13, 2020
The AHA, joined by America’s Essential Hospitals, Association of American Medical
Colleges, and Federation of American Hospitals urged the Supreme Court to reverse a federal appeals court decision that held the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate unconstitutional.
May 13, 2020
This brief1 is filed on behalf of 36 state hospital associations,2 which represent over 5,000 hospitals and health systems that treat tens of millions of patients every year and currently stand on the frontlines of a global pandemic. Amici and their
members (hereafter “amici”) share an interest in…
From Ballotpedia
California v. Texas
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argument: November 10, 2020 Decided: June 17, 2021
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
7-2
Majority
Stephen Breyer • Chief Justice John Roberts • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan •
Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Clarence Thomas
Dissenting
Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch
California v. Texas is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 2020, during the court's October 2020-2021 term. The case concerned the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
In a 7-2 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 5th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the ACA's minimum essential coverage provision because they had not shown past or future injury fairly traceable to the defendants' conduct enforcing the provision. Justice
Stephen Breyer delivered the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice
Neil Gorsuch.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.
HIGHLIGHTS
The
case: In 2010, President Barack Obama (D) signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law. The ACA established requirements for individuals to have health coverage and instituted fines for those without coverage. In 2018, 20 states filed a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging § 5000A of the ACA and claiming the law was unconstitutional. A district court judge ruled the law was invalid. On appeal, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled § 5000A was unconstitutional and remanded the case. A group of states petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, arguing (1) the respondents did not have the legal right to challenge the law and (2) the law was not
unconstitutional.[2]
The questions presented: (1) Whether the individual and state plaintiffs in this case have established Article III standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision in Section 5000A(a). (2) Whether reducing the amount
specified in Section 5000A(c) to zero rendered the minimum coverage provision unconstitutional. (3) If so, whether the minimum coverage provision is severable from the rest of the ACA.[3]
The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's ruling.
The case, consolidated with Texas v. California, came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. You can review the lower court's opinion here.
Timeline
The
following timeline details key events in this case:
June 17, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's ruling.
February 10, 2021: The U.S.
government notified the U.S. Supreme Court that it changed its position and now believes that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.[4]
November 10, 2020: Oral argument was heard.
March 2, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
January 3, 2020: The petitioners filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
December 18, 2019: The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed in part and
vacated in part the district court's ruling.
December 14, 2018: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled the
ACA's individual mandate was unconstitutional.
Background
Affordable Care Act
See also: Obamacare overview
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also
known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare, was passed on March 21, 2010, and signed into law by President Barack Obama (D) on March 23, 2010. The ACA included 26 U.S.C. § 5000A—known as the individual mandate—requiring individuals to have health coverage and establishing fines for those who did not. Section 5000A(c) specified the payment amount. In National Federation of Independent
Business v. Sebelius (2012), SCOTUS upheld § 5000A as "an exercise of Congress's taxing power." In 2017, Congress set the amount of the shared responsibility payment at zero, effective January 1, 2019.[2]
Litigation
Northern District of Texas
On February 26, 2018, 20
states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The lawsuit claimed the ACA was unconstitutional because the individual mandate was removed, invalidating the entire law. The lawsuit stated, "Once the heart of the ACA—the individual mandate—is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA must also
fall."[5][6]
On December 14, 2018, Judge Reed O'Connor ruled the ACA's individual mandate was unconstitutional and, because of its role
as a critical feature of the law, the ACA was invalid.[7]
The federal government agreed with the plaintiffs that the ACA was unconstitutional. Sixteen states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. House of Representatives intervened in the
suit to defend the act.[2]
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
On December 18, 2019, a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit ruled the ACA's individual mandate was unconstitutional. The appeals court sent the lawsuit back to the Northern District of Texas, asking the judges to consider how much of the ACA could remain with the individual mandate considered unconstitutional.[8]
Petition to SCOTUS
In a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court,
the petitioners argued the lower courts invalidated federal law "in a way that creates uncertainty about the status of the entire Affordable Care Act." They presented as arguments in the petition:
"No plaintiff has established standing and, in any event, an unenforceable minimum coverage provision does not offend the Constitution. ... Under the circumstances here there can be no doubt that Congress
wanted to keep the rest of the ACA in place even without an enforceable minimum coverage provision, because that is precisely the effect of the amendment that Congress itself enacted."
The decision of the 5th Circuit and the Northern District of Texas are "incorrect as to standing, the merits, and severability."[2]
Petitioners
The petitioners in this case included:[2]
California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Illinois Iowa Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Nevada New
Jersey New York North Carolina Oregon Rhode Island Vermont Virginia Washington The Governor of Kentucky Andy Beshear (D) The District of Columbia
Respondents
The respondents in this case included:[2]
Alabama Arizona Arkansas Florida Georgia Indiana Kansas Louisiana Mississippi, by and through Governor of Mississippi
Phil Bryant (R) Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah West Virginia Individuals Neill Hurley and John Nantz
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the
court:
Questions presented:
(1) Whether the individual and state plaintiffs in this case have established Article III standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision in Section 5000A(a).
(2) Whether reducing the amount specified in Section 5000A(c) to zero rendered the minimum coverage provision unconstitutional.
(3) If so, whether the minimum coverage provision is severable from the rest of the ACA.[3]
Oral argument
The Supreme Court allocated 40 minutes of oral argument to each side, rather than the usual 30 minutes per side, for oral argument. The court also granted requests for the U.S. House of Representatives and the Trump
administration to participate in the argument.[9]
Oral argument time allotments
Petitioners
Respondents
California: 30 minutes U.S. House: 10 minutes
Texas: 20 minutes U.S. solicitor general: 20 minutes
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[10]
Transcript
Outcome
In a 7-2
opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's ruling and remanded
the case for further proceedings, holding that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge the ACA's minimum essential coverage provision because they had not shown past or future injury fairly traceable to the defendants' conduct at issue in the case. Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the majority opinion. Justice
Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil
Gorsuch.[1]
Opinion
In the court's majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote:[1]
“
As originally enacted in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act required most Americans to obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage. The Act also imposed a monetary penalty, scaled according to in-come, upon individuals who failed to do so. In 2017, Congress effectively nullified the penalty by setting its amount at $0. See Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Pub. L. 115–97, §11081, 131 Stat. 2092 (codified in 26 U. S. C. §5000A(c)).
Texas and 17 other States
brought this lawsuit against the United States and federal officials. They were later joined by two individuals (Neill Hurley and John Nantz). The plaintiffs claim that without the penalty the Act’s minimum essential coverage requirement is unconstitutional. Specifically, they say neither the Commerce Clause nor the Tax Clause (nor any other enumerated power) grants Congress the power to enact it. See U.S. Const., Art. I, §8. They also argue that the minimum essential coverage requirement is not
severable from the rest of the Act. Hence, they believe the Act as a whole is invalid. We do not reach these questions of the Act’s validity, however, for Texas and the other plaintiffs in this suit lack the standing necessary to raise them.
... We proceed no further than standing. The Constitution gives federal courts the power to adjudicate only genuine “Cases” and “Controversies.” Art. III, §2. That power includes the requirement that litigants have standing. A plaintiff has standing
only if he can “allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992). Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have shown that the injury they will suffer or have suffered is “fairly traceable” to the “allegedly unlawful conduct”
of which they complain.
... For these reasons, we conclude that the plaintiffs in this suit failed to show a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct in enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional. They have failed to show that they have standing to attack as unconstitutional the Act’s minimum essential coverage provision. Therefore, we reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judgment in respect to standing, vacate the judgment, and
remand the case with instructions to dismiss.[11]
”
—Justice Stephen Breyer
Concurring
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]
“
There is much to commend JUSTICE ALITO’s account of “our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy.” Post, at 1 (dissenting opinion). This Court has gone to great lengths to rescue the Act from its own text. Post, at 1–2. So have the Act’s defenders, who argued in first instance that the individual coverage mandate is the Act’s linchpin, yet now, in an about-face, contend that it is just a throwaway sentence.
But, whatever the Act’s dubious history in this Court, we must
assess the current suit on its own terms. And, here, there is a fundamental problem with the arguments advanced by the plaintiffs in attacking the Act—they have not identified any unlawful action that has injured them. Ante, at 5, 11, 14–16. Today’s result is thus not the consequence of the Court once again rescuing the Act, but rather of us adjudicating the particular claims the plaintiffs chose to bring. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the harm they suffered is traceable
to unlawful conduct. Although this Court has erred twice before in cases involving the Affordable Care Act, it does not err today.[11]
”
—Justice Clarence Thomas
Dissenting
Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
In his dissent, Justice Alito
wrote:[1]
“
Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two. In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue.
In the opening installment, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. 519 (2012) (NFIB), the Court saved the so-called “individual mandate,” the same critical provision at issue in
today’s suit. At that time, the individual mandate imposed a “penalty” on most Americans who refused to purchase health insurance or enroll in Medicaid, see 26 U.S.C. §5000A (2012 ed.), and it was widely thought that without the mandate much of the Act—and perhaps even the whole scheme—would collapse. The Government’s principal defense of the mandate was that it represented a lawful exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, see U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, but the Court
rejected that unprecedented argument, see 567 U. S., at 572 (opinion of the Court); id., at 561 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); id., at 648 (joint dissent of Scalia, Kennedy, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ.). That might have foretold doom, but then, in a stunning turn of events, the threat to the ACA was defused when the “penalty” for failing to comply with the mandate was found to be a “tax” and thus to be justified as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. Id., at 575 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); see
also id., at 574 (opinion of the Court); see U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1. By a vote of 5 to 4, the individual mandate—and with it the rest of the ACA—lived on.
In the next installment, King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), the Court carried out an equally impressive rescue. One of the Act’s key provisions provided subsidies to persons purchasing insurance through exchanges established by a “State.” 26 U.S.C. §§36B(b)–(c) (2012 ed.). When many States refused to establish such
exchanges, the Federal Government did so instead. But the critical subsidies were seemingly unavailable on those exchanges, which had not been established by a “State” in any conventional sense of the term. Once again, some feared that the Act was in mortal danger, but the Court came to the rescue by finding that the Federal Government is a “State.” 576 U.S., at 484–498.
Now, in the trilogy’s third episode, the Court is presented with the daunting problem of a “tax” that does not tax. Can
the taxing power, which saved the day in the first episode, sustain such a curious creature? In 2017, Congress reduced the “tax” imposed on Americans who failed to abide by the individual mandate to $0. With that move, the slender reed that supported the decision in NFIB was seemingly cut down, but once again the Court has found a way to protect the ACA. Instead of defending the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the Court simply ducks the issue and holds that none of the Act’s
challengers, including the 18 States that think the Act saddles them with huge financial costs, is entitled to sue.
Can this be correct? The ACA imposes many burdensome obligations on States in their capacity as employers, and the 18 States in question collectively have more than a million employees. Even $1 in harm is enough to support standing. Yet no State has standing? ...
... In this suit, ... , Texas and the other state plaintiffs have standing, and now that the “tax” imposed
by the individual mandate is set at $0, the mandate cannot be sustained under the taxing power. As a result, it is clearly unconstitutional, and to the extent that the provisions of the ACA that burden the States are inextricably linked to the individual mandate, they too are unenforceable.
... No one can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this Court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats. A penalty is a tax. The United States is a State. And 18 States who
bear costly burdens under the ACA cannot even get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge. So a tax that does not tax is allowed to stand and support one of the biggest Government programs in our Nation's history. Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again.
But I must respectfully dissent.[11]
”
—Justice Samuel Alito
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
Additional reading
Obamacare overview
Affordable Care Act under the Trump administration
Multistate lawsuits against the federal government, 2017-2020
October term 2020-2021
See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the
following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[12]
The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument.
Click here for more information on the court's opinions.
The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the
2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were
removed from the argument calendar.
See also
External links
Search Google News for this topic
U.S. Supreme Court docket file - California v. Texas (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
SCOTUSblog case file for California v. Texas
U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Texas v. California (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
SCOTUSblog case file for Texas v. California
Footnotes
↑ 1.0 1.1
1.2 1.3 1.4U.S. Supreme Court, California v. Texas, decided
June 17, 2021
↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2
2.3 2.4 2.5Supreme Court of the United States, California v. Texas - Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed March 3, 2020
↑
3.0 3.1Supreme Court of the United States, California v. Texas - Questions presented," accessed March 3, 2020
↑U.S. Supreme Court, "Re: California, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 19-840, and Texas, et al. v. California, et al., No. 19-1019," February 10, 2021
↑Reuters, "Twenty states sue federal government, seeking end to Obamacare," February 26, 2018
↑The Wall Street Journal, "GOP Lawsuit Takes Aim at Affordable Care Act Again," February 27, 2018
↑Scribd, "Texas et al. v. United States of America et al.," December 14, 2018
↑Texas Tribune, "Individual mandate is unconstitutional, federal appellate court rules in Texas-led Affordable Care Act lawsuit," December 18, 2019
Baldwin • Barbour • Black • Blackmun •
Blair • Blatchford • Bradley • Brandeis •
Brennan • Brewer • Brown •
Burton • Butler • Byrnes • Campbell •
Cardozo • Catron • Chase • Clark •
Clarke • Clifford • Curtis • Cushing •
Daniel • Davis • Day • Douglas •
Duvall • Field • Fortas • Frankfurter •
Ginsburg • Goldberg • Gray • Grier •
Harlan I • Harlan II • Holmes • Hunt •
Iredell • H. Jackson • R. Jackson • T. Johnson •
W. Johnson, Jr. • J. Lamar • L. Lamar •
Livingston • Lurton • Marshall • Matthews •
McKenna • McKinley • McLean • McReynolds •
Miller • Minton • Moody • Moore •
Murphy • Nelson • Paterson • Peckham •
Pitney • Powell • Reed • Roberts • W.
Rutledge • Sanford • Scalia • Shiras • Stevens •
Stewart • Story • Strong • Sutherland •
Swayne • Thompson • Todd • Trimble •
Van Devanter • Washington • Wayne • B. White •
Whittaker • Wilson • Woodbury • Woods
v•e
Ballotpedia
About
Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia •
Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities
Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and
Technology Strategy
Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell •
Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski • Caitlin Vanden Boom External Relations:
Alison Prange • Moira Delaney • Hannah Nelson •
Caroline Presnell Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Mandy Morris •
Kelly Rindfleisch Policy: Christopher Nelson • Caitlin Styrsky •
Molly Byrne • Katharine Frey • Jimmy McAllister • Samuel Postell Research: Josh Altic Tech: Matt Latourelle • Nathan Bingham •
Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish
• Margaret Kearney • Joseph Sanchez
Contributors: Scott Rasmussen
Editorial
Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Chief • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor •
Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams •
Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Emma Burlingame • Marielle Bricker •Kate Carsella •
Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Nicole Fisher •
Juan García de Paredes • Sara Horton • Tyler King •
Doug Kronaizl • David Luchs • Roneka Matheny •
Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus •Jackie Mitchell •
Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy •
Samantha Post • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Myj Saintyl • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine •
Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora
Why did the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act?
They directly targeted the linchpin that saved the law in 2012. The Supreme Court largely upheld the ACA in 2012 when it ruled the mandate could be considered a tax and therefore was constitutional.
What did the Supreme Court rule after considering Texas's challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?
In Texas v. United States, the Supreme Court held that Texas and other plaintiff states do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.
What did the Supreme Court decide about the individual mandate?
The individual mandate was upheld as a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxing power by a five member majority of the Supreme Court in NFIB v.
Why was the healthcare reform legislation challenged in Court?
Eighteen states—along with two individuals—filed a lawsuit in February 2018 arguing that, because federal lawmakers reduced the mandate's “shared responsibility payment” to $0 through the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
