Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

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 THOMAS, concurring. 
There  is  much  to  commend  JUSTICE  ALITO’s  account  of 
“our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy.”  Post, at 1 (dissenting 
opinion).  This Court has gone to great lengths to rescue the 
Act from its own text.  Post, at 1–2.  So have the Act’s de-
fenders,  who  argued  in  first  instance  that  the  individual 
coverage  mandate  is  the  Act’s  linchpin,  yet  now,  in  an
about-face, contend that it is just a throwaway sentence.

But, whatever the Act’s dubious history in this Court, we
must assess the current suit on its own terms.  And, here, 
there  is  a  fundamental  problem  with  the  arguments  ad-
vanced by the plaintiffs in attacking the Act—they have not
identified any unlawful action that has injured them.  Ante, 
at 5, 11, 14–16.  Today’s result is thus not the consequence
of the Court once again rescuing the Act, but rather of us 
adjudicating  the  particular  claims  the  plaintiffs  chose  to 
bring. 

I 
This Court first encountered the Act in 2011.  That case