Full name: Texas, Wisconsin, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Paul LePAGE, Governor of Maine, Governor Phil Bryant of the State of Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Neill Hurley, and John Nantz,
Plaintiffs,
v.
United States Of America, United States Department Of Health And Human Services, Alex Azar, in his Official Capacity as Secretary Of Health And Human Services, United States Internal Revenue Service, and David J. Kautter, in his Official Capacity as Acting Commissioner Of Internal Revenue,
Defendants.
California, Connecticut, District Of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota by and through its Department of Commerce, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington,
Intervenor-Defendants.
Note: Court justices do not represent any political party. The color of each judge's name represents the political party of the president who appointed the judge.
Click here for a list of all Supreme Court justices
ObamaCare ruled unconstitutional
Trump supports Texas v. US
Administration court filing
Texas v. US to Supreme Court
Biden supports ObamaCare
ObamaCare not invalidated
ObamaCare: What you should know
Sabotaging Obamacare
What is this case about?
This case could have determined the future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), based on whether certain parts of the law are severable from others.
In its 7-2 decision, however, the Supreme Court did not address this issue. Rather, it ruled that the plaintiffs showed no harm to themselves as a result of the law, and therefore had no standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place.
The decision keeps ObamaCare intact, and it remains the nation's health care policy.
How did this case come about?
As part of the tax law passed in December 2017, Congress eliminated the mandate - the requirement of ObamaCare for most people to have health care insurance.
Twenty states with Republican legislatures then sued the federal government - claiming the entire law is unconstitutional because Congress eliminated the requirement to purchase insurance in 2019.
The Trump administration said that it would not defend ObamaCare.
Because the Trump administration would not defend the law, a group consisting of 17 state attorneys general (referred to as intervenors in the case) has been allowed to defend ObamaCare in the case.
In 2021, the new Biden administration reversed the Trump administration's position, saying that ObamaCare is constitutional the way Congress left it in 2019 and that it should be preserved.
Is the mandate "severable" from other ObamaCare provisions?
The Republican plaintiffs argued the mandate harms their states because it increases enrollment in state employment health plans, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
The Democratic intervenors argued that there could be no harm from a $0 dollar penalty.
One prevalent theme in the arguments was the intent of Congress - both in the original 2010 law and in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
The Republican plaintiffs argued that Congress never intended to separate the mandate from the law - that ObamaCare can't work without it.
We have previously explained that ObamaCare still is effective without the mandate. It just costs everyone more.
The Democratic intervenors argued that it was the intent of Congress to keep the remainder of the law intact - because that's what it did.
For a detailed description of the oral arguments in the case, see this Health Affairs article.
Click here to read the Democratic intervenors' arguments against the lawsuit.
Millions could have lost health care insurance
Since 2015, ObamaCare has provided many protections to the health care of Americans.
Had the court ruled the law to be unconstitutional, any or all of these protections could have disappeared.
Millions who are covered through Medicaid Expansion could simply have lost their coverage. And those who rely on the premium subsidies provided by ObamaCare could have found themselves unable to afford coverage.
For more on the possible impacts of the case, read this NPR interview transcript.
Key participants
The 20 states filing the suit (plaintiffs) are...
o Arizona
o Arkansas
o Florida
o Georgia
o Indiana
o Kansas
o Louisiana
o Maine
o Mississippi
o Missouri
o Nebraska
o North Dakota
o South Carolina
o South Dakota
o Tennessee
o Texas (lead plaintiff)
o Utah
o West Virginia
o Wisconsin
Kansas, Maine, and Wisconsin will have Democratic governors in 2019. It is not known whether that will change their standing in the case.
The intervening states defending the law are...
o Connecticut
o Delaware
o Hawaii
o Illinois
o Kentucky
o Massachusetts
o Minnesota
o New Jersey
o New York
o North Carolina
o Oregon
o Rhode Island
o Vermont
o Virginia
o Washington
o District of Columbia
Fed judge rules ObamaCare unconstitutional
On Dec. 18, 2018 federal judge Reed O'Connor sided with the Republican states, ruling that ObamaCare without the mandate violates the Constitution.
There likely will be no effective change to the law until the appeals process is finalized.
Court leaves law intact
Originally named Texas v. U.S. in the lower courts, its became California v. Texas in the Supreme Court.
On Dec. 18, 2018 federal judge Reed O'Connor sided with the Republican states, ruling that ObamaCare without the mandate violates the Constitution.
The law remained in place without change pending the appeals process terminating with the Supreme Court.
On Nov. 10, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the case. It announced its ruling on June 17, 2021.