Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

6 

CALIFORNIA v. TEXAS 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

(plurality  opinion)  (slip  op.,  at  16,  n. 8).    Thus,  standing-
through-inseverability could only be a valid theory of stand-
ing to the extent it treats inseverability as a merits exercise
of statutory interpretation.  See Post, at 15–16 (ALITO, J., 
dissenting); Lea, supra, at 764–776.  But petitioners have
proposed no such theory. 

* 

* 
The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the harm they
suffered  is  traceable  to  unlawful  conduct.    Although  this
Court has erred twice before in cases involving the Afford-
able Care Act, it does not err today. 

*