California v. Texas
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in California v. Texas and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of California v. Texas.
The Supreme Court decided that the plaintiffs in California v. Texas lacked standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act's minimum essential coverage provision. The Court found no injury traceable to the government's conduct, as the penalty for noncompliance was set to $0, rendering the provision unenforceable. Consequently, the case was vacated and remanded.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in California v. Texas.
The Court held that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision of the Affordable Care Act.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in California v. Texas. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Standing is relevant to California v. Texas
The Court's decision was based on the plaintiffs' lack of standing to challenge the statute.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge § 5000A(a)'s minimum essential coverage provision because they have not shown a past or future injury fairly traceable to defendants' conduct enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to California v. Texas
The Court exercised its power of judicial review to determine whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Constitution gives federal courts the power to adjudicate only genuine 'Cases' and 'Controversies.' Art. III, § 2.
-
Why Remedies and Relief is relevant to California v. Texas
The Court discussed the lack of a remedy that would redress the plaintiffs' alleged injuries.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Article III standing requires identification of a remedy that will redress the individual plaintiffs' injuries.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in California v. Texas that support the summary and concepts above.
Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge § 5000A(a)'s minimum essential coverage provision.
No plaintiff has shown such an injury 'fairly traceable' to the 'allegedly unlawful conduct' challenged here.
Unenforceable statutory language alone is not sufficient to establish standing.
