Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

14 

CALIFORNIA v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

example, individuals who purchase insurance on individual
exchanges—like  individual  plaintiffs  Hurley  and  Nantz—
do not increase the relevant costs to the States of furnishing 
coverage.)  Nor does it explain why they might do so.  The 
CBO  statement  does  not  adequately  trace  the  necessary 
connection  between  the  provision  without  a  penalty  and 
new enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP.  We have found no 
other significant evidence that might keep the CBO state-
ment company.

Unsurprisingly,  the  States  have  not  demonstrated  that
an unenforceable mandate will cause their residents to en-
roll  in  valuable  benefits  programs  that  they  would  other-
wise forgo.  It would require far stronger evidence than the 
States  have  offered  here  to  support  their  counterintuitive
theory  of  standing,  which  rests  on  a  “highly  attenuated
chain of possibilities.”  Clapper, 568 U. S., at 410–411; cf. 
Department of Commerce, 588 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at
10–11)  (District  Court  did  not  clearly  err  in  finding  that 
plaintiffs had standing where plaintiffs relied not only on 
“the predictable effect of Government action on the decisions 
of third parties” but also on comprehensive studies, rather 
than mere “speculation” (emphasis added)). 

2 
The state plaintiffs add that §5000A(a)’s minimum essen-
tial coverage provision also causes them to incur additional
costs directly.  They point to the costs of providing benefi-
ciaries  of  state  health  plans  with  information  about  their 
health insurance coverage, as well as the cost of furnishing 
the  IRS  with  that  related  information.    See  Brief  for  Re-
spondent/Cross-Petitioner States 20–22 (citing 26 U. S. C.
§§6055, 6056). 

The  problem  with  these  claims,  however,  is  that  other
provisions of Act, not the minimum essential coverage pro-
vision,  impose  these  other  requirements.    Nothing  in  the
text of these form provisions suggests that they would not