What did the Supreme Court determine in California v. Texas about the ACA's minimum essential coverage provision?

What did the Supreme Court determine in California v. Texas about the ACA's minimum essential coverage provision?

• A. The plaintiffs had standing to challenge it
• B. The plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge it
• C. The provision was deemed unconstitutional
• D. The provision was upheld by the court

Answer: (B)

In California v. Texas, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) minimum essential coverage provision. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a sufficient injury as required for legal standing, which is essential for any party wishing to bring a lawsuit. Specifically, the justices found that the plaintiffs could not show that the requirement to obtain health insurance imposed an actual and concrete harm, particularly after Congress had reduced the penalty for not obtaining coverage to zero in 2017. This ruling highlighted the importance of standing in judicial proceedings and emphasized that merely being opposed to a law or regulation does not confer the right to challenge it in court. Hence, the court did not address the constitutionality of the provision itself since the standing issue rendered the case non-justiciable.

In California v. Texas, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) minimum essential coverage provision. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a sufficient injury as required for legal standing, which is essential for any party wishing to bring a lawsuit. Specifically, the justices found that the plaintiffs could not show that the requirement to obtain health insurance imposed an actual and concrete harm, particularly after Congress had reduced the penalty for not obtaining coverage to zero in 2017. This ruling highlighted the importance of standing in judicial proceedings and emphasized that merely being opposed to a law or regulation does not confer the right to challenge it in court. Hence, the court did not address the constitutionality of the provision itself since the standing issue rendered the case non-justiciable.