Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

4 

CALIFORNIA v. TEXAS 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

the plaintiffs have carried this burden.  As the majority ex-
plains in detail, the individual plaintiffs allege only harm
caused  by  the  bare  existence  of  an  unlawful  statute  that 
does not impose any obligations or consequences.  Ante, at 
5–10.  That is not enough. The state plaintiffs’ arguments
fail for similar reasons.  Although they claim harms flowing
from  enforcement  of  certain  parts  of  the  Act,  they  attack 
only the lawfulness of a different provision.  None of these 
theories trace a clear connection between an injury and un-
lawful conduct.

 JUSTICE ALITO does not contest that analysis.  Rather, he 
argues that the state plaintiffs can establish standing an-
other way: through “inseverability.”  Post, at 15 (“First, [the
States] contend that the individual mandate is unconstitu-
tional . . . .  Second, they argue that costly obligations im-
posed  on  them  by  other  provisions  of  the  ACA  cannot  be
severed from the mandate.  If both steps of the States’ ar-
gument that the challenged enforcement actions are unlaw-
ful are correct, it follows that the Government cannot law-
fully  enforce  those  obligations  against  the  States”).    This 
theory offers a connection between harm and unlawful con-
duct.  And, it might well support standing in some circum-
stances, as it has some support in history and our case law.
See post, at 16–20; Lea, Situational Severability, 103 Va. L. 
Rev. 735, 764–776 (2017).

But,  I  do  not  think  we  should  address  this  standing-
through-inseverability argument for several reasons.  First, 
the plaintiffs did not raise it below, and the lower courts did 
not address it in any detail.  945 F. 3d 355, 386, n. 29 (CA5 
2019).  That omission is reason enough not to address this
theory because “ ‘we are a court of review, not of first view.’ ”  
Brownback v. King, 592 U. S. ___, ___, n. 4 (2021) (slip op., 
at  5,  n.  4).  Second,  the  state  plaintiffs  did  not  raise  this
theory in their opening brief before this Court, see Brief for