Explaining California v. Texas: A Guide to the Case Challenging the ACA
No. 19-840, https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-840.html. The case has been consolidated with Texas v. California, No. 19-1019, https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1019.html.
Texas v. U.S., No. 19-10011, slip opin. (5th Cir. Dec. 20, 2019) (revised with technical corrections), https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/fifth-circuit-opinion-technical-revisions-12-20.pdf.
Texas v. U.S., No. 4:18-cv-00167-O, Compl. (N.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2018), https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/177111358274.pdf.
In addition, Montana and Ohio filed an amicus brief in the 5th Circuit and the Supreme Court, arguing that the individual mandate is now unconstitutional but that it should be severed, allowing the rest of the law to survive.
Texas v. U.S., No. 4:18-cv-00167-O, Amended Compl. (N.D. Tex. April 23,, 2018), https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/texas-v-us-aca-amended-complaint.pdf.
The federal government and the state and individual plaintiffs also endorse the Supreme Court’s determination in NFIB that the individual mandate is not a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. The trial court adopted and the 5th Circuit affirmed both of these conclusions in their decisions.
Texas v. U.S., supra. n. 2, slip opin. at 54.
Letter from U.S. Dep’t of Justice to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Clerk (March 25, 2019), https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/doj-anti-aca-letter-3-25.pdf.
It stated that the “relief awarded to the plaintiffs should extend only to the ACA’s provisions that actually injure them. Texas v. U.S., no 19-1001, Brief for the Federal Defendants at 19 (5th Cir. May 1, 2019), https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/5c-us-brief.pdf.
Texas v. U.S., supra. n. 2, slip opin. at 10-11, 61.
Id. at 12.
Texas v. U.S., Nos. 19-840 and 19-1019, Br. for Fed. Respond. at 49 (June 25, 2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-840/146406/20200625205555069_19-840bsUnitedStates.pdf.
Texas v. U.S., No. 19-1001, Order (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2019), https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/5c-order-denying-motion-to-expedite-granting-oregon-motion-to-intervene.pdf.
Texas v. U.S., No. 19-1001, Order (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2019), https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/5c-order-granting-us-house-motion-to-intervene.pdf. The House also sought to intervene in the trial court proceedings in January 2019, but the trial court stayed briefing on that motion, citing the pending 5th Circuit appeal.
Texas v. U.S., supra. n. 2, slip opin. at 16.
Id. at 13.
Id. at 15.
Id. at 21-23.
Id. at 28-33.
Id. at 69.
Id. at 75, 77.
Texas v. U.S., No. 19-1001, Br. for State Appellees at 34 (5th Cir. May 1, 2019), https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/5c-appellees-brief.pdf. The federal government pointed out that prior to the TCJA, the shared responsibility payment for tax year 2019 and beyond would have been the greater of 2.5% of household income or $695. Texas v. U.S., no. 19-1001, Br. for the Fed. Defendants at 13 (5th Cir. May 1, 2019), https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/5c-us-brief.pdf.
Texas v. U.S., supra. n. 2, slip opin. at 79.
Id. at 84, 83 (emphasis in original).
Id. at 56.
Id. at 59.
Id. at 62.
Id. at 84-85.
The Court denied California’s request to review the cert petition on an expedited basis. California and the House had asked the Court to proceed on an expedited basis so that the case could be heard and decided in the current term, by June 2020.