California v. Texas
Issues
Do the individual and state plaintiffs have standing to challenge the amended individual mandate provision of the ACA; and, if they do, is the provision unconstitutional because Congress reduced the penalty for non-compliance with the provision to zero; and, finally, if the provision is unconstitutional, can it be severed from the rest of the ACA?
This case asks the Supreme Court to determine the status of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) after Congress amended the ACA’s individual mandate in 2017. When Congress enacted the ACA in 2010, the individual mandate required individuals to maintain health insurance or pay a penalty. In 2012, the Court upheld the individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’s Taxing Power. In 2017, as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress lowered the individual mandate’s penalty for failing to maintain health insurance to zero dollars. Texas contends that by setting the penalty for non-compliance to zero dollars, Congress rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional because it no longer is a valid exercise of Congress’s Taxing Power. Texas further argues that the individual mandate is not severable from the rest of the ACA, requiring the Supreme Court to strike down the entirety of the ACA. California disputes this. As a threshold matter, California contends that the opposing parties do not have standing to bring this claim because they have not been injured by the penalty of zero dollars. But even if they have standing, California argues that the individual mandate is constitutional. Finally, if it is not constitutional, California contends that the individual mandate can be severed from the rest of the ACA. This case, and the viability of the ACA, has drastic policy implications for the millions of Americans who rely on the ACA for their health insurance.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
(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) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA); (2) whether reducing the amount specified in Section 5000A(c) to zero rendered the minimum-coverage provision unconstitutional; and (3) if so, whether the minimum-coverage provision is severable from the rest of the ACA.
In March 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) into law. Texas v. United States at 2. The ACA’s proponents hoped to expand healthcare coverage while offsetting the costs of rising health insurance premiums.
Written by
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Adam Liptak and Abby Goodnough, Supreme Court to Hear Obamacare Appeal, New York Times (May 6, 2020).
- Stephanie Armour, Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Invalidate Affordable Care Act, The Wall Street Journal (June 26, 2020).
- Julie Rovner, The Future Of The Affordable Care Act In A Supreme Court Without Ginsburg, NPR (Sept. 21, 2020).