Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

California v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States

November 10, 2020, Argued; June 17, 20211, Decided

Nos. 19-840 and 19-1019.

Opinion

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.

As originally enacted in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act required most Americans to obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage.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 income, 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 [*7]  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 begin by describing the provision of the Act that the plaintiffs attack as unconstitutional. The Act says in relevant part:

“(a) Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage

“An applicable individual shall . . . ensure that the individual, and any dependent . . . who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage . . . .

“(b) Shared responsibility payment

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2021 U.S. LEXIS 3119 *; 141 S. Ct. 2104; 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 869; 2021 WL 2459255

CALIFORNIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TEXAS, ET AL.; TEXAS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Notice: The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version.

Prior History:  [*1] ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Texas v. United States, 945 F.3d 355, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 37567, 2019 WL 6888446 (5th Cir. Tex., Dec. 18, 2019)

Disposition: 945 F. 3d. 355, reversed and remanded.

CORE TERMS

provisions, individual mandate, coverage, traceable, inseverable, costs, obligations, merits, quotation, marks, provide coverage, redress, individual plaintiff, employees, injuries, cases, health insurance, unlawful conduct, enroll, federal government, taxing power, removal, opinion of the court, unenforceable, intervenors, premiums, programs, declaratory judgment, imposes, parties

Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Standing, Elements, Governments, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Particular Parties, Civil Procedure, Justiciability, Injury in Fact, Legislation, Statutory Remedies & Rights, Federal Declaratory Judgments, Discretionary Jurisdiction, Factors, Declaratory Judgments, Scope of Declaratory Judgments, Judgments, Summary Judgment, Burdens of Proof, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof