Explaining Texas v. U.S.: 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 amicus briefs in the 5th Circuit, 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 endorsed 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. 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

  12. 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

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

    ← Return to text

  14. Id. at 13.

    ← Return to text

  15. Id. at 15.

    ← Return to text

  16. Id. at 21-23.

    ← Return to text

  17. Id. at 28-33.

    ← Return to text

  18. Id. at 69.

    ← Return to text

  19. Id. at 75, 77.

    ← Return to text

  20. 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

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

    ← Return to text

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

    ← Return to text

  23. Id. at 56.

    ← Return to text

  24. Id. at 59.

    ← Return to text

  25. Id. at 62.

    ← Return to text

  26. Id. at 84-85.

    ← Return to text

  27. California v. Texas, No. 19-840, Petition for a Writ of Cert. (U.S. Jan. 3, 2020). The House also filed a cert petition, raising these same three issues, which remains pending before the Court. U.S. House of Representatives v. Texas, No. 19-841, Petition for a Writ of Cert. (U.S. Jan 3, 2020).

    ← Return to text

  28. The individual plaintiffs and the federal government also opposed California’s cert petition.

    ← Return to text

  29. Because California’s cert petition has been consolidated with Texas’s cross-petition, the parties may request that the Clerk designate one party to file an opening and reply brief and the other party to file an answering brief and a supplemental brief following the reply brief to the extent appropriate and establish the time for submission of briefs. Supreme Court Rule 25, https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf.

    ← Return to text

  30. 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