Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

10 

CALIFORNIA v. TEXAS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

are  before  the  court  and  reinforces  the  traditional  under-
standing of legal judgments.  See Massachusetts v. Mellon, 
262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923) (“If a case for preventive relief be 
presented,” what the court enjoins are “the acts of the offi-
cial” charged with the law’s enforcement). 

The States have clearly shown that they suffer concrete
and  particularized  financial  injuries  that  are  traceable  to 
conduct of the Federal Government.  The ACA saddles them 
with expensive and burdensome obligations, and those ob-
ligations are enforced by the Federal Government.  That is 
sufficient to establish standing.  As the Court observed in 
Lujan, when a party is “an object of the action . . . at issue,” 
“there  is  ordinarily  little  question  that  the  action  . . .  has 
caused [that party] injury”—i.e., that the injury is traceable 
to that action—“and that a judgment preventing . . . the ac-
tion  will  redress  it.”    504  U. S.,  at  561–562.  That  is  pre-
cisely the situation here.  The state plaintiffs have shown 
that they are the object of potential federal enforcement ac-
tions if they do not comply with costly and burdensome ob-
ligations that the ACA imposes. 

Consider  what  the  state  plaintiffs  have  shown  with  re-
spect  to  the  ACA  reporting  requirements  codified  at  26
U. S. C. §§6055 and 6056.  These sections provide the basis 
for the familiar 1094 and 1095 IRS tax forms.  Section 6055 
applies to those who “provid[e] minimum essential coverage
to an individual during a calendar year.”  Subsection (a) of 
that provision requires that returns be filed with the IRS,
and subsection (c) requires that similar forms be provided 
—————— 
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 3); Car-
ney  v.  Adams,  592  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2020)  (slip  op.,  at  4);  Department  of 
Commerce v. New York, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 9); Virginia 
House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 
3);  Gill  v. Whitford,  585  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2018)  (slip  op.,  at  13); Town  of 
Chester  v. Laroe  Estates,  Inc.,  581  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2017)  (slip  op.,  at  5); 
Bank of America Corp. v. Miami, 581 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 5); 
and Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., 
at 9).