Plain-English summary
Court rules plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the ACA’s minimum coverage provision
In California v. Texas (2021), the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage provision after Congress set the penalty to zero. The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and sent the case back.
Why this matters
The ruling prevents the Supreme Court from resolving a major constitutional attack on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because the plaintiffs failed to show they were directly harmed by the law as currently written. That leaves the ACA intact and limits when federal courts can decide similar broad challenges to federal statutes.
Who may feel it
- People who receive health coverage through the ACA marketplaces
- States and state officials considering lawsuits against federal laws
- Lower courts and litigants bringing constitutional challenges
- Policy makers and insurers who monitor ACA stability
Key questions
- Do the individual and state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the ACA’s minimum coverage provision after the penalty was reduced to zero?
- If the penalty being zeroized does make the minimum coverage provision unconstitutional, must the entire ACA fall or can the problematic part be separated (severed) from the rest of the law?