19-840

E412570

19-840 is the U.S. Supreme Court case California v. Texas, which challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate after Congress reduced the tax penalty to zero.

All labels observed (1)

Label Occurrences
19-840 canonical 1

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (50)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
argumentDate November 10, 2020 ⓘ
caseName California v. Texas ⓘ
citation 593 U.S. ___ (2021) ⓘ
constitutionalProvision Article III of the United States Constitution ⓘ
Commerce Clause (invoked in arguments and background) ⓘ
linked to: Commerce Clause

Taxing and Spending Clause (invoked in arguments and background) ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate June 17, 2021 ⓘ
dissentingJustice Neil M. Gorsuch ⓘ
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. ⓘ
linked to: Samuel A. Alito Jr.
dissentType dissenting opinion ⓘ
docketNumber 19-840 ⓘ
effect Left the Affordable Care Act in place without deciding the constitutionality of the zero-penalty individual mandate ⓘ
holding Because plaintiffs lacked standing, the Court did not reach the merits of the constitutional or severability questions ⓘ
Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision of the Affordable Care Act ⓘ
issue Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate after the tax penalty was reduced to zero ⓘ
Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge the individual mandate ⓘ
Whether the individual mandate, if unconstitutional, was severable from the rest of the Affordable Care Act ⓘ
joinedByInMajority Amy Coney Barrett ⓘ
Brett M. Kavanaugh ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ
Elena Kagan ⓘ
John G. Roberts, Jr. ⓘ
linked to: John G. Roberts Jr.

Neil M. Gorsuch ⓘ
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. ⓘ
linked to: Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ
jurisdiction United States federal law ⓘ
legalSubject Affordable Care Act ⓘ
individual mandate ⓘ
severability ⓘ
standing ⓘ
lowerCourt United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ⓘ
lowerCourtHolding Individual mandate was unconstitutional and further analysis was required on severability ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
outcome Judgment of the Court of Appeals was vacated and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss ⓘ
petitioner Other states and parties supporting the Affordable Care Act ⓘ
State of California ⓘ
proceduralPosture On certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ⓘ
relatedCase King v. Burwell ⓘ
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ⓘ
linked to: NFIB v. Sebelius
relatedStatute 26 U.S.C. § 5000A ⓘ
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ⓘ
linked to: Affordable Care Act

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ⓘ
respondent Other states and individuals challenging the Affordable Care Act ⓘ
State of Texas ⓘ
linked to: Texas
subjectMatter federal health care reform ⓘ
federal taxation and penalties ⓘ
timePeriod 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act era challenges to the Affordable Care Act ⓘ
vote 7-2 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.