Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 26

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

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 ALITO, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, dis-

senting. 

Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Af-
fordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as
installments one and two.  In all three episodes, with the 
Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has
pulled off an improbable rescue.

In the opening installment, National Federation of Inde-
pendent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. 519 (2012) (NFIB),
the  Court  saved  the  so-called  “individual  mandate,”  the 
same critical provision at issue in today’s suit.  At that time, 
the individual mandate imposed a “penalty” on most Amer-
icans who refused to purchase health insurance or enroll in
Medicaid,  see  26  U. S. C.  §5000A  (2012  ed.),  and  it  was 
widely thought that without the mandate much of the Act—
and perhaps even the whole scheme—would collapse.  The 
Government’s principal defense of the mandate was that it
represented a lawful exercise of Congress’s power to regu-
late interstate commerce, see U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3,