California v. Texas
In a challenge to the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate after its tax penalty was reduced to zero, the Court ruled that Texas and the other challenging states lacked standing because they had shown no past or future injury from the provision.· AI-written
141 S. Ct. 2104 · No. 19-840 · 2020 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 17, 2021 · argued Nov 10, 2020
Judicial power · Standing to sue: miscellaneous
Majority opinion: Stephen Breyer
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Reversed and remanded. California won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
California was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
California v. Texas, 593 U.S. 659 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare. It was the third such challenge to the ACA seen by the Supreme Court since its enactment. The case in California followed after the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and the change to the tax penalty amount for Americans without required insurance that reduced the "individual mandate" (26 U.S.C. § 5000A) to zero, effective for months after December 31, 2018. The District Court of the Northern District of Texas concluded that this individual mandate was a critical provision of the ACA and that, with a penalty amount equal to zero, some or all of the ACA was potentially unconstitutional as an improper use of Congress's taxation powers.
Under the Donald Trump administration, the federal government had declined to challenge the lower court ruling, leading California and several other states to intervene and appeal the ruling, which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but determined that the mandate might be severable from the rest of the ACA. Both California and Texas petitioned review of the Fifth's decision to the Supreme Court; the Court consolidated both California v. Texas and Texas v. California under the same case.
In a 7–2 decision issued on June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas and other states that initially challenged the individual mandate did not have standing, as they had not shown past or future injury related to the provision. The Supreme Court otherwise did not rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in this case.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2020 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Stephen BreyerWrote the majority opinion
Clarence ThomasWrote a concurrence
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Amy BarrettJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Samuel AlitoWrote a dissent
Neil GorsuchJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- CaliforniaState (California)
- Respondent
- TexasState (Texas)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 17, 2021DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: reversed and remanded. California won.
- Nov 10, 2020ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Texas Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
6 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: miscellaneous, newest first.
- Department of Education v. Brown600 U.S. 551Jun 30, 2023 · 600 U.S. 551Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Texas599 U.S. 670Jun 23, 2023 · 599 U.S. 670Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Trump v. New York141 S. Ct. 530Dec 18, 2020 · 141 S. Ct. 530Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates137 S. Ct. 1645Jun 5, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1645Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al. v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., et al.509 U.S. 43Jun 18, 1993 · 509 U.S. 43Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Brownell, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, v. Chase National Bank of New York, Trustee, et al.352 U.S. 36Nov 19, 1956 · 352 U.S. 36Judicial power7–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.