Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 28

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

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

States that think the Act saddles them with huge financial 
costs, is entitled to sue. 

Can this be correct?  The ACA imposes many burdensome
obligations  on  States  in  their  capacity  as  employers,  and 
the 18 States in question collectively have more than a mil-
lion  employees.1    Even  $1  in  harm  is  enough  to  support 
standing.  Yet no State has standing?

In prior cases, the Court has been selectively generous in 
allowing States to sue.  Just recently, New York and certain
other States were permitted to challenge the inclusion of a 
citizenship question in the 2020 census even though any ef-
fect on them depended on a speculative chain of events.  See 
Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U. S. ___, ___– 
___ (2019) (slip op., at 9–11).  The States’ theory was that
the citizenship question might cause some residents to vio-
late their obligation to complete a census questionnaire and 
that this, in turn, might decrease the States’ allocation of 
House  seats  and  their  share  of  federal  funds.  Id.,  at  ___ 
(slip op., at 9).

Last Term, Pennsylvania and New Jersey were permitted 
to  contest  a  rule  exempting  the  Little  Sisters  of  the  Poor
and other religious employers from the ACA’s contraceptive
mandate.  Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul 
Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U. S. ___ (2020).  There, the the-
ory was that some affected employees might not be able to
afford  contraceptives  and  might  therefore  turn  to  state-
funded  sources  to  pay  for  their  contraceptives  or  the  ex-
penses of an unwanted pregnancy.2  Some years ago, Mas-
sachusetts was allowed to sue (and force the Environmental 

—————— 

1 See  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  Census,  2020  Annual  Survey  of
Public Employment & Payroll Datasets, State Government Employment
&  Payroll  Data  (May  2021),  www.census.gov/data/datasets/2020/econ/ 
apes/annual-apes.html. 

2 See Pennsylvania v. President of United States, 930 F. 3d 543, 561– 
565 (CA3 2019).  Although our opinion did not address the issue, we are 
required to consider Article III standing in every case that comes before