Plain-English summary
Court says plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge ACA’s minimum coverage rule
In California v. Texas (docket 19-840), the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs did not have Article III standing to bring their challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s minimum essential coverage provision (formerly called the individual mandate). The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and sent the case back.
Why this matters
The decision limits who can bring federal lawsuits attacking federal laws by enforcing Article III's requirement that plaintiffs show a real, particularized injury caused by the law. It left unanswered whether the zero-penalty version of the ACA’s coverage requirement is constitutional, so the law itself remains in place and continues to govern health insurance rules.
Who may feel it
- Individuals and states considering similar constitutional challenges to federal statutes
- People relying on or insured under the Affordable Care Act
- Federal courts — in how they apply Article III standing rules
Key questions
- Do the individual and state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the ACA’s minimum coverage provision after the penalty was set to zero?