Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 4

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 19–840 and 19–1019 
_________________ 

19–840 

CALIFORNIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
TEXAS, ET AL. 

19–1019 

TEXAS, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
CALIFORNIA, ET AL. 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 17, 2021] 

JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. 
As originally enacted in 2010, the Patient Protection and 
Affordable  Care  Act  required  most  Americans  to  obtain
minimum  essential  health  insurance  coverage.  The  Act 
also  imposed  a  monetary  penalty,  scaled  according  to  in-
come, upon individuals who failed to do so.  In 2017, Con-
gress effectively nullified the penalty by setting its amount 
at $0.  See Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Pub. L. 115–97, 
§11081, 131 Stat. 2092 (codified in 26 U. S. C. §5000A(c)). 
Texas and 17 other States brought this lawsuit against
the  United  States  and  federal  officials.    They  were  later
joined  by  two  individuals  (Neill  Hurley  and  John  Nantz).
The plaintiffs claim that without the penalty the Act’s min-
imum  essential  coverage  requirement  is  unconstitutional. 
Specifically, they say neither the Commerce Clause nor the