Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

2 

CALIFORNIA v. TEXAS 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

involved the constitutionality of the Act’s individual cover-
age mandate.  National Federation of Independent Business 
v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. 519, 530 (2012).  Despite correctly rec-
ognizing that Congress’ enumerated powers did not allow it 
to impose such a mandate, the Court nonetheless upheld it 
by characterizing the “financial penalty” imposed on those
who failed to comply with the mandate as a “tax.”  Id., at 
574. 

That curious approach left us with no need to address a
subsidiary question on which we had also granted review:
whether  the  Act  was  inseverable  from  the  mandate  and 
thus  would  need  to  fall  if  the  mandate  were  unconstitu-
tional.  The parties challenging the law argued “yes.”  And 
the Government agreed in part.  It stressed that the man-
date could not be severed from two other important features 
of the Act: the “guaranteed-issue” provision—which bars in-
surers from denying coverage based on medical conditions
or  history—and  the  “community-rating”  provision—which 
bars insurers from charging individuals higher premiums
for similar reasons.  Brief for Respondents in National Fed-
eration of Independent Business v. Sebelius, O. T. 2011, No. 
11–393,  pp.  44–54;  see  42  U. S. C.  §§300gg–1,  300gg–3, 
300gg–4(a), 300gg(a)(1), 300gg–4(b). 

According to the Government, the mandate was “neces-
sary to make those [other] reforms effective.”  Brief for Re-
spondents in No. 11–393, at 44.  It noted that “Congress’s
findings  expressly  state  that  enforcement  of  those  provi-
sions without a minimum coverage provision would restrict 
the availability of health insurance and make it less afford-
able—the  opposite  of  Congress’s  goals  in  enacting  the  Af-
fordable  Care  Act.”  Id.,  at  44–45;  see  §§18091(2)(H)–(J). 
And as JUSTICE ALITO discusses in more detail, at the time 
we decided NFIB, “it was widely thought that without the 
mandate  much  of  the  Act—and  perhaps  even  the  whole
scheme—would collapse.”  Post, at 1, 27–29.