Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 31

6 

CALIFORNIA v. TEXAS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

of  2017,  H. R.  1628,  115th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.  (2017).    Later 
that year, the two Chambers compromised in the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act (TCJA), Pub. L. 115–97, 131 Stat. 2054, which
set the amount of the “tax” imposed for noncompliance with
the  individual  mandate  at  “[z]ero  percent”  and  “$0.”
§11081,  131  Stat.  2092  (amending  26  U. S. C.  §5000A).
What  the  NFIB  Court  had  salvaged  as  a  “tax”  could  now
raise no revenue. 

C 
After  the  enactment  of  the  TCJA,  Texas  and  17  other 
States brought suit against the United States, the Commis-
sioner of the IRS, the IRS, the Secretary of Health and Hu-
man Services, and the Department of Health and Human 
Services to challenge the ACA.3  The state plaintiffs identi-
fied many expenses imposed on them by the ACA, and they
sought declaratory and injunctive relief.  In their view, the 
individual mandate could no longer be sustained as a “tax,” 
and the remainder of the ACA was unenforceable because 
it  was  inseparable  from  that  unconstitutional  provision. 
Soon thereafter, two individuals joined the States as plain-
tiffs.  California, 15 other States, and the District of Colum-
bia intervened to defend the ACA.4  For its part, the Federal 
Government  agreed  that  the  individual  mandate  was  un-
constitutional but argued that it was severable from almost 

—————— 

3 These  States were  Alabama,  Arizona,  Arkansas,  Florida,  Georgia,
Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi (via its Governor), Missouri, Ne-
braska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, 
and West Virginia.  The State of Wisconsin was also a plaintiff in District 
Court but has since been voluntarily dismissed from the suit.  Former 
Maine Governor Paul LePage attempted to represent Maine as a plaintiff
in the District Court, but was subsequently dismissed from the lawsuit. 
4 The state intervenors are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, 
Illinois,  Kentucky  (via  its  Governor),  Massachusetts,  Minnesota,  New 
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Vir-
ginia,  and  Washington.    Colorado,  Iowa,  Michigan,  and  Nevada  also 
joined as additional state intervenors while this suit was on appeal.