Explaining California v. Texas: A Guide to the Case Challenging the ACA

Issue Brief
  1. 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.

    ← Return to text

  2. 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.

    ← Return to text

  3. 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.

    ← Return to text

  4. 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.

    ← Return to text

  5. 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.

    ← Return to text

  6. 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.

    ← Return to text

  7. Texas v. U.S., supra. n. 2, slip opin. at 54.

    ← Return to text

  8. 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.

    ← Return to text

  9. 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.

    ← Return to text

  10. Texas v. U.S., supra. n. 2, slip opin. at 10-11, 61.

    ← Return to text

  11. Id. at 12.

    ← Return to text

  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.

    ← Return to text

  13. 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.

    ← Return to text

  14. 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.

    ← Return to text

  15. Texas v. U.S., supra. n. 2, slip opin. at 16.

    ← Return to text

  16. Id. at 13.

    ← Return to text

  17. Id. at 15.

    ← Return to text

  18. Id. at 21-23.

    ← Return to text

  19. Id. at 28-33.

    ← Return to text

  20. Id. at 69.

    ← Return to text

  21. Id. at 75, 77.

    ← Return to text

  22. 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.

    ← Return to text

  23. Texas v. U.S., supra. n. 2, slip opin. at 79.

    ← Return to text

  24. Id. at 84, 83 (emphasis in original).

    ← Return to text

  25. Id. at 56.

    ← Return to text

  26. Id. at 59.

    ← Return to text

  27. Id. at 62.

    ← Return to text

  28. Id. at 84-85.

    ← Return to text

  29. 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.

    ← Return to text

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Headquarters: 185 Berry St., Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94107 | Phone 650-854-9400
Washington Offices and Barbara Jordan Conference Center: 1330 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005 | Phone 202-347-5270

www.kff.org | Email Alerts: kff.org/email | facebook.com/KaiserFamilyFoundation | twitter.com/kff

Filling the need for trusted information on national health issues, the Kaiser Family Foundation is a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco, California.