California v. Texas
Case Overview
The Supreme Court held 7-2 that Texas and other state plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate after Congress reduced the associated tax penalty to zero in 2017. Justice Breyer wrote for the majority, leaving the ACA intact without reaching the underlying constitutional question.
Decision
Opinion of the Court
The Facts
After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 zeroed out the individual mandate penalty, Texas and 17 other states filed suit arguing the mandate was now unconstitutional and that the unconstitutional provision could not be severed from the ACA, making the entire statute void. Two individual plaintiffs joined the suit. The Fifth Circuit agreed the mandate was unconstitutional but remanded on severability. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the constitutional question.
The Application
Once Congress zeroed the tax penalty, Texas and the other state plaintiffs could not establish any concrete injury from the individual mandate - without a financial consequence for noncompliance, the mandate inflicted no cognizable legal harm on those who declined to comply. The states attempted to allege indirect injuries from increased uninsured populations, but these were too speculative and attenuated to create Article III standing. The Court's resolution on standing therefore made it unnecessary to determine whether the mandate was constitutionally infirm or whether the provision could be severed from the broader statute.
The Conclusion
**By dismissing on standing, the Court left the ACA fully intact without ruling on its constitutionality.** The decision ended the longest-running legal challenge to the statute and confirmed that a mandate with no enforcement mechanism cannot form the basis of a constitutional injury.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court held 7-2 that Texas and other state plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate after Congress reduced the associated tax penalty to zero in 2017. Justice Breyer wrote for the majority, leaving the ACA intact without reaching the underlying constitutional question.
Facts
After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 zeroed out the individual mandate penalty, Texas and 17 other states filed suit arguing the mandate was now unconstitutional and that the unconstitutional provision could not be severed from the ACA, making the entire statute void. Two individual plaintiffs joined the suit. The Fifth Circuit agreed the mandate was unconstitutional but remanded on severability. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the constitutional question.
Issue
Whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge the ACA's individual mandate when Congress reduced the penalty to zero, eliminating any direct financial consequence for noncompliance.
Rule
Article III requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent, fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and redressable by a favorable decision. A law that carries no penalty cannot inflict a cognizable legal injury on those who decline to comply.
Analysis
Once Congress zeroed the tax penalty, Texas and the other state plaintiffs could not establish any concrete injury from the individual mandate. Without a financial consequence for noncompliance, the mandate inflicted no cognizable legal harm on those who declined to comply. The states attempted to allege indirect injuries from increased uninsured populations, but these were too speculative and attenuated to create Article III standing. The Court's resolution on standing therefore made it unnecessary to determine whether the mandate was constitutionally infirm or whether the provision could be severed from the broader statute.
Conclusion
**By dismissing on standing, the Court left the ACA fully intact without ruling on its constitutionality.** The decision ended the longest-running legal challenge to the statute and confirmed that a mandate with no enforcement mechanism cannot form the basis of a constitutional injury.
Notes
OT2020. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support