Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

8 

CALIFORNIA v. TEXAS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Constitution.  That is a remarkable holding.  While the in-
dividual  plaintiffs’  claim  to  standing  raises  a  novel  ques-
tion, the States have standing for reasons that are straight-
forward and meritorious.  The Court’s contrary holding is
based on a fundamental distortion of our standing jurispru-
dence. 

A 
The governing rules are well-settled.  To establish Article 
III standing, a plaintiff must show: (1) “an injury in fact”; 
(2) that this injury “is fairly traceable to the challenged con-
duct of the defendant”; and (3) that the injury “is likely to 
be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”  Spokeo, Inc. 
v. Robins, 578 U. S. 330, 338 (2016); see also, e.g., Carney v. 
Adams,  592  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2020)  (slip  op.,  at  4);  Hol-
lingsworth v. Perry, 570 U. S. 693, 704 (2013); Lujan v. De-
fenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992). 

In the present suit, there is no material dispute that the
States  have  satisfied  two  of  these  requirements.    First, 
there is no question that the States have demonstrated an
injury in fact.  An injury in fact is “an invasion of a legally 
protected  interest  that  is  concrete  and  particularized  and
actual  or  imminent,  not  conjectural  or  hypothetical.” 
Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 339 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).  A  financial  or  so-called  “pocketbook”  injury  consti-
tutes injury in fact, and even a small pocketbook injury—
like the loss of $1—is enough.  See Czyzewski v. Jevic Hold-
ing  Corp.,  580  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2017)  (slip  op.,  at  11)  (“For 
standing purposes, a loss of even a small amount of money 
is  ordinarily  an  ‘injury’ ”).    Here,  the  States  have  offered 
plenty of evidence that they incur substantial expenses in 
order to comply with obligations imposed by the ACA.

There is likewise no material dispute that these financial 
injuries could be redressed by a favorable judgment.  The 
District Court declared the entire ACA unenforceable, and 
that  judgment,  if  sustained,  would  spare  the  States  from