Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2 

CALIFORNIA v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

Tax Clause (nor any other enumerated power) grants Con-
gress  the  power  to  enact  it.  See  U. S.  Const.,  Art.  I,  §8. 
They  also  argue  that  the  minimum  essential  coverage  re-
quirement 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. 

I 
A 
We begin by describing the provision of the Act that the
plaintiffs attack as unconstitutional.  The Act says in rele-
vant part: 

“(a)  Requirement  to  maintain  minimum  essen-
tial coverage

“An  applicable  individual  shall  . . .  ensure  that  the 
individual, and any dependent . . . who is an applicable 
individual, is covered under minimum essential cover-
age . . . . 
“(b)  Shared responsibility payment 

“(1) In general
“If  a  taxpayer  who  is  an  applicable  individual  . . . 
fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) . . . there 
is hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty . . . in the 
amount determined under subsection (c). 

“(2) Inclusion with return
“Any penalty imposed by this section . . . shall be in-
cluded  with  a  taxpayer’s  return  . . .  for  the  taxable 
year . . . .”  26 U. S. C. §5000A. 

The Act defines “applicable individual” to include all tax-
payers  who  do  not  fall  within  a  set  of  exemptions.    See 
§5000A(d).  As first enacted, the Act set forth a schedule of 
penalties  applicable  to  those  who  failed  to  meet  its  mini-
mum  essential  coverage  requirement.  See  §5000A(c)