Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):
Texas v. California
Consolidated with:
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19-1019 | 5th Cir. |
Nov 10, 2020 Tr.Aud. |
TBD | TBD | TBD | OT 2020 |
Issues: (1) Whether the unconstitutional individual mandate to purchase minimum essential coverage is severable from the remainder of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; and (2) whether the district court properly declared the ACA invalid in its entirety and unenforceable anywhere.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Argument analysis: ACA seems likely to survive, but on what ground? (Amy Howe)
- Symposium: The court should not “sever” where the president cannot (Andy Schlafly)
- Symposium: Severability poses a high-stakes question with (what should be) an easy answer (Pratik Shah)
- Symposium: “Schrödinger’s tax” is dead – and the command to buy health insurance is unconstitutional (Matthew Forys)
- Symposium: Enough is enough: The coverage provision is still constitutional and the court should reject this latest pretext for attacking the ACA (Brietta Clark)
- Symposium: The individual plaintiffs in California v. Texas suffer a greater Article III injury than did the individual plaintiffs in NFIB v. Sebelius (Josh Blackman and Ilya Shapiro)
- Symposium: No injury means no standing (Katie Keith)
- Case preview: Justices will consider constitutionality of ACA’s individual mandate again (Amy Howe)
- Court adds extra argument time in Affordable Care Act case (James Romoser)
- Justices will hear argument in ACA case one week after Election Day (Amy Howe)
- Obamacare back at the court: Julie Rovner joins SCOTUStalk to preview the newest ACA challenge (SCOTUStalk)
- “A scalpel rather than a bulldozer”: Severability is in the spotlight as the newest ACA challenge looms (Abbe R. Gluck)
- Justices grant Affordable Care Act petitions (Amy Howe)
- Petitions of the week (Andrew Hamm)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| Feb 14 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 16, 2020) |
| Feb 18 2020 | Letter of February 18, 2020 from counsel for respondent U.S. House of Representatives filed. |
| Feb 19 2020 | Letter of February 19, 2020 from counsel for respondent State of California filed. |
| Feb 24 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2020. |
| Mar 02 2020 | Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-840 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED. |
| Mar 02 2020 | Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-840. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-840. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.” |
| Aug 19 2020 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 10, 2020. VIDED. |
| Aug 31 2020 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit. |
| Sep 02 2020 | CIRCULATED |
| Sep 10 2020 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer. |
| Nov 10 2020 | Argued. For California, et al.: Michael J. Mongan, Solicitor General, San Francisco, Cal. For U.S. House of Representatives: Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Washington, D. C. For Texas, et al.: Kyle D. Hawkins, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex. For United States, et al.: Jeffrey B. Wall, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED. |
Submit Event
