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

16 

CALIFORNIA v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

employer health plans for employees working 30–39 hours 
per  week);  42  U. S. C.  §1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(IX)  (providing 
continuing  Medicaid  coverage  for  those  aged  out  of  foster
care).  At  most,  those  provisions  pick  up  only  §5000A(f)’s
definition of minimum essential coverage in related subsec-
tions.  No one claims these other provisions violate the Con-
stitution.  Rather, the state plaintiffs attack the constitu-
tionality of only the minimum essential coverage provision. 
They  have  not  alleged  that  they  have  suffered  an  “injury 
fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful con-
duct.”  Cuno, 547 U. S., at 342 (quoting Allen, 468 U. S., at 
751). 

* 

* 

* 

For these reasons, we conclude that the plaintiffs in this 
suit  failed  to  show  a  concrete,  particularized  injury  fairly 
traceable  to  the  defendants’  conduct  in  enforcing  the  spe-
cific  statutory  provision  they  attack  as  unconstitutional. 
They have failed to show that they have standing to attack 
as unconstitutional the Act’s minimum essential coverage
provision.  Therefore,  we  reverse  the  Fifth  Circuit’s  judg-
ment in respect to standing, vacate the judgment, and re-
mand the case with instructions to dismiss. 

It is so ordered.