Supreme Court Rejects States’ Challenge to ACA

Supreme Court Rejects States’ Challenge to ACA

U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit <a href="/lr/resolve//2bqbv" rel="noopener" target="_blank">decision</a> that held that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced the shared responsibility payment to zero, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge <a href="/research/federal/usc26/5000A#cpxg-0000002" resolve="/lr/resolve/section-5000aa/cpxg#cpxg-0000002" title="section 5000A(a)">section 5000A(a)</a>’s minimum essential coverage provision. The Court did not reach questions regarding the ACA’s validity. Texas and 17 other states along with two individuals challenged the constitutionality of the minimum essential coverage provision of the ACA in <a href="/research/federal/usc26/5000A#cpxg-0000002" resolve="/lr/resolve/section-5000aa/cpxg#cpxg-0000002" title="section 5000A(a)">section 5000A(a)</a>, claiming that the provision was unconstitutional after the TCJA nullified it by setting the penalty at zero. They further claimed that the individual mandate was not severable from the rest of the ACA. A U.S. district court found that the plaintiffs had standing and held that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and was not severable from the rest of the ACA. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed that <a href="/research/federal/usc26/5000A#cpxg-0000002" resolve="/lr/resolve/section-5000aa/cpxg#cpxg-0000002" title="section 5000A(a)">section 5000A(a)</a> was unconstitutional, but remanded the case regarding whether it was severable from the rest of the ACA. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the individual and state plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge <a href="/research/federal/usc26/5000A#cpxg-0000002" resolve="/lr/resolve/section-5000aa/cpxg#cpxg-0000002" title="section 5000A(a)">section 5000A(a)</a>. Breyer explained that the individual plaintiffs, with the penalty set at zero, could not show "that any kind of Government action or con­duct has caused or will cause the injury they attribute to <a href="/research/federal/usc26/5000A#cpxg-0000002" resolve="/lr/resolve/section-5000aa/cpxg#cpxg-0000002" title="section 5000A(a)">section 5000A(a)</a>." According to Breyer, the states also lacked standing because they could not show that the unenforceable mandate has caused them damage. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, agreed that the plaintiffs lacked standing. He noted his disagreement with prior ACA decisions, saying, "Although this Court has erred twice before in cases involving the Afford­able Care Act, it does not err today." Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented from the majority decision.

The Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit decision that held that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced the shared responsibility payment to zero, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge section 5000A(a)’s minimum essential coverage provision.

The Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit decision that held that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced the shared responsibility payment to zero, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge section 5000A(a)’s minimum essential coverage provision. The Court did not reach questions regarding the ACA’s validity. Texas and 17 other states along with two individuals challenged the constitutionality of the minimum essential coverage provision of the ACA in section 5000A(a), claiming that the provision was unconstitutional after the TCJA nullified it by setting the penalty at zero. They further claimed that the individual mandate was not severable from the rest of the ACA. A U.S. district court found that the plaintiffs had standing and held that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and was not severable from the rest of the ACA. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed that section 5000A(a) was unconstitutional, but remanded the case regarding whether it was severable from the rest of the ACA. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the individual and state plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge section 5000A(a). Breyer explained that the individual plaintiffs, with the penalty set at zero, could not show "that any kind of Government action or con­duct has caused or will cause the injury they attribute to section 5000A(a)." According to Breyer, the states also lacked standing because they could not show that the unenforceable mandate has caused them damage. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, agreed that the plaintiffs lacked standing. He noted his disagreement with prior ACA decisions, saying, "Although this Court has erred twice before in cases involving the Afford­able Care Act, it does not err today." Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented from the majority decision.

Sec. 5000A Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage

United States

Search Connectors

Retrieving Documents With a Tax Analysts’ Citation:

Field Restricted Searching:

Supreme Court Rejects States’ Challenge to ACA