Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 22

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

This Court also embraced that view when we reencoun-
tered the Act in 2015.  King v. Burwell, 576 U. S. 473.  Sav-
ing  the  Act  again  through  a  feat  of  linguistic  ingenuity—
this time by redefining “State” to mean “ ‘State or the Fed-
eral Government,’ ” id., at 498 (Scalia, J., dissenting)—the
Court explained that “Congress [had] found that the guar-
anteed issue and community rating requirements would not 
work without the [mandate],” id., at 482; see also post, at 5 
(ALITO, J., dissenting).

But times have changed.  In this suit, the plaintiffs assert 
that the mandate is unconstitutional because it no longer 
imposes financial consequences and thus cannot be justified 
as a tax.  And given that the mandate is unconstitutional, 
other portions of the Act that actually harm the plaintiffs 
must  fall  with  it.  In  response  to  this  theory,  the  current
administration contends that the mandate can be severed 
from the rest of the Act.  Letter from E. Kneedler, Deputy
Solicitor  General,  to  S.  Harris,  Clerk  of  Court  (Feb.  10, 
2021)  (notifying  the  Court  of  the  Federal  Government’s
change in position).  The Act’s other defenders agree.  Brief 
for Petitioners 35–49.  In other words, those who would pre-
serve the Act must reverse course and argue that the man-
date has transformed from the cornerstone of the law into 
a standalone provision. 

II 
On all of this JUSTICE ALITO and I agree.  Where we part
ways is on the relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled.  The 
Constitution  gives  this  Court  only  the  power  to  resolve
“Cases”  or  “Controversies.”    Art. III,  §2.
  As  everyone
agrees,  we  have  interpreted  this  language  to  require  a
plaintiff to present an injury that is traceable to a particu-
lar “unlawful” action.  Ante, at 5, 11, 14–16; post, at 9–10 
(ALITO, J., dissenting).  And in light of the specific theories
and arguments advanced in this suit, I do not believe that