Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

CALIFORNIA ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 19–840.  Argued November 10, 2020—Decided June 17, 2021* 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as enacted in 2010 re-
quired most Americans to obtain minimum essential health insurance
coverage and imposed a monetary penalty upon most individuals who 
failed to do so.  Amendments to the Act in 2017 effectively nullified the 
penalty by setting its amount to $0.  Subsequently, Texas (along with 
over a dozen States and two individuals) brought suit against federal
officials, claiming that without the penalty the Act’s minimum essen-
tial coverage provision, codified at 26 U. S. C. §5000A(a), is unconsti-
tutional.  They sought a declaration that the provision is unconstitu-
tional,  a  finding  that  the  rest  of  the  Act  is  not  severable  from 
§5000A(a),  and  an  injunction  against  enforcement  of  the  rest  of  the 
Act.  The District Court determined that the individual plaintiffs had 
standing.  It also found §5000A(a) both unconstitutional and not sev-
erable from the rest of the Act.  The Fifth Circuit agreed as to the ex-
istence of standing and the unconstitutionality of §5000A(a), but con-
cluded  that  the  District  Court’s  severability  analysis  provided
insufficient justification to strike down the entire Act.  Petitioner Cal-
ifornia and other States intervened to defend the Act’s constitutional-
ity and to seek further review. 

Held: Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge §5000A(a)’s minimum
essential  coverage  provision  because  they  have  not  shown  a  past  or 
future injury fairly traceable to defendants’ conduct enforcing the spe-
cific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional.  Pp. 4–16.

(a) The  Constitution  gives  federal  courts  the  power  to  adjudicate 

—————— 

* Together with No. 19–1019, Texas et al. v.  California et al., also on 

certiorari to the same court.