This morning, the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision ruled that none of the plaintiffs in the suit Texas v California had standing to sue, and therefore the suit that had sought to toss the entire ACA should never have been brought or ruled upon. The ACA survives.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court rejects the constitutional challenge to Obamacare in 7-2 opinion. The court tosses the lawsuit because the challengers do not have legal standing to sue. https://t.co/meuQgPE50Z
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 17, 2021
The theory of the case that the plaintiffs brought was that the Republican tax cut bill signed in December 2017 zeroed out the individual mandate penalty and therefore made the mandate more coercive and not a tax. From here, they argue that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. And they then argued that the individual mandate was critical to the rest of the law, and thus it was not severable from any part of the law and the entire law must then be tossed.
The court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer, said a zero dollar mandate penalty with no enforcement mechanism is not an injury, it is effectively a statement that puppies are awesome and ice cream is yummy, and thus the individual plaintiffs had no particular injuries. The state plaintiffs have no standing because their complaint is about other aspects of the ACA that causes paperwork requirements and policy outcomes that they don’t like, and it can not be traced directly to the individual mandate that a state by definition never paid.
There are a few other legal challenges to the ACA; most notably the role of the bodies that places some services into the no cost sharing tier of essential health services. But right now the ACA insures 30 million people and it is here to stay.
Cermet
So even Barrett and Kavanaugh came on board to agree with the ruling; wonders never cease.
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
This decision came about to push Breyer to stay in the Supremes rather than retire. Chief Justice Shakes is pretending comity on the high court to ensure the next Supremes opening, as with Scalia & Ginsburg vacancies, is filled by a GQP president.
p.a.
Yep, another bullet dodged (this one seems more like a .22 hand-thrown by a little league pitcher).
But considering they’re still trying to kill Social Security 80+ years on, “it ain’t over ’till”, fuck it’s never over!
patrick II
I am so proud to be an American because our very civilized institutions managed to not take healthcare away from millions of people during a pandemic.
David Anderson
@Cermet: Standing rulings are catnip for conservative judges when they want to dodge a case.
Spanky
David,
I believe the actual ruling states that “ice cream is awesome and puppies are yummy”.
That opinion was written by Barrett.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@MontyTheClipArtMongoose: Or they think Biden isn’t joking when he jokes about increasing the number of justices,
Major Major Major Major
Alito didn’t surprise me but Gorsuch kinda did. Curious what the dissents actually say–objections to the standing question? Do they opine on the actual substance?
brantl
I am always impressed by the grasp-at-anything sophistry of the right wing judges, when they know they have to rule against their mob.
Another Scott
@Major Major Major Major: There was only Alito’s dissent which Gorsuch joined. He didn’t have anything different or qualifying to say in the dissent.
IOW, Alito wants to strike the law down and Gorsuch is on board.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
(“Who is still NAL.”)
Spanky
@Another Scott:
The claim of a “burden” hasn’t withstood scrutiny, right?
The Other Bob
Isn’t it actually CA v. TX, not TX v. CA?
LongHairedWeirdo
@Cermet: It’s not surprising. They can claim they were reasonable, for not making a ruling that would be farcial, if not so horrible. They can also say it’s a horrible, terrible law, but they weren’t asked to judge the merits.
This also allows them not to dissent from the notion that the mandate penalty was ruled, in the first case, to be a tax-equivalent, and thus the mandate is satisfied if you pay the tax (currently $0.00) or have insurance. That makes it look as if they give a flying fornication at a rolling doughnut about stare decisis.
Another Scott
@Spanky: Not to anyone sensible, but Alito spent pages 26-57 of the PDF file screaming that it’s obvious and that everyone else on the court who disagrees is a stupid commie.
Cheers,
Scott.
Barbara
@The Other Bob: They sometimes change the order if the original plaintiff is the appellee, as Texas was, because it won at the appellate level. I hate having that Fifth Circuit decision out there, but once they lose on standing they won’t go any further.
LongHairedWeirdo
@p.a.: That is also why I’m sympathetic to people who don’t want to abolish the filibuster. The Republicans can do a *lot* more damage without the filibuster, than Democrats can repair without it.
Barbara
@Another Scott: Following faithfully in the steps of Scalia who never got over thinking of himself as the smartest person in the room no matter what the subject.
Baud
@Barbara:
Nah. Alito doesn’t pretend to be an intellectual like Scalia. He’s very honest and upfront about what he’s there to do.
Ken
He needs to calm down before he has a stroke. Or maybe not.
West of the Rockies
Texas loses. AGAIN. Why doesn’t Texas mind its own damn business about how other states count their votes and provides insurance to its citizens?
For a state that claims to love going it alone, it sure is always in everyone’s business.
Omnes Omnibus
@David Anderson: Standing rules are a baseline for any court. You have to have some skin in the game to file a suit. I know that people like to talk about “technicalities” like they are some kind of trick, but they actually matter. You have to have standing. Courts need an actual case or controversy – they don’t do advisory opinions.
Another Scott
@Ken: Looks like his father, Alito Sr, lived to be 73. His mother lived to be 98. Hard to predict which longevity genes he got.
Cheers,
Scott.
Omnes Omnibus
Two SCOTUS threads and less than 50 total comments. This must be a record.
Spanky
@Omnes Omnibus: It’s a weird day on this blog, for reasons I canna fathom.
Another Scott
@Omnes Omnibus: Not enough RICO.
Cheers,
Scott.
Ruckus
@West of the Rockies:
They say they go it alone so that all the dirty commies will leave them alone. Then they go after all the dirty commies. Or whatever the left is today.
Elizabelle
@Baud: Scalito. The snack chip from hell.
I remember the kabuki of his confirmation hearings. Dreadful man.
President Biden: pack that Court!
cmorenc
The durability of the ACA against fierce efforts to undermine, repeal, or overturn it confirms conservative fears that once social programs the middle-class in America regard as beneficial to them get successfully established, they are extremely difficult to uproot, and even a conservative-majority SCOTUS hesitates against uprooting the program. GOP conservatives have desired and intermittently plotted to figure out some way to undemine and uproot social security ever since it was created 85 years ago, but so far in vain. Not that they won’t keep trying under one subtrufuge or another to attack both the ACA, and less directly social security (e.g. by trying to turn it into a low-income eligibility program).
Frankensteinbeck
@Ken:
I think he has had one or more already. My peanut gallery diagnosis is that the guy is showing cognitive decline, particularly a degradation of his social filters. Alito has always been a hack, but lately his dissents are ‘grandpa ruins Thanksgiving again’ territory.
fake irishman
Hey all,
University of Michigan Law Professor Nicholas Bagley has a really good thread breaking down the opinion here, which includes a good overview of Breyer’s opinion, as well as a lot of justified shade dumping on Alito’s dissent. This is not unexpected, but a major relief; the fact that they actually tossed this on standing before even considering the merits is good. This ain’t a technicality; this is “GTFO of my court room,” which is what the District Court judge in Texas and the Fifth Circuit should have said years ago. The opinion isn’t “sadly we have to reject these claims” it’s pointing and laughing derisively at the states and consultants who claim they have standing to sue without any actual, you know “injury”
FWIW, I think that Breyer’s authorship of this opinion has nothing to do with whether or not he will choose to retire. There are enough dark conspiracies out there without us inventing new ones.
burnspbesq
@Barbara:
You’re underestimating Paxton’s willingness to file frivolous claims against the eebil Fredrul gubmint. Texas Republicans eat this shit up, and until the courts start dropping Rule 11 sanctions on his head, he has no incentive to stop.
fake irishman
@burnspbesq:
This is true about Paxton. This particular avenue on the ACA is now closed to him, and I suspect he’ll shy away from it for awhile but he’s got plenty of other shit to shovel. His most recent lawsuit over the Biden administration’s (entirely justified) revocation of the state’s Section 1115 Medicaid waiver is …special.
It sure would be nice if we could have a trial over that felony he was indicted for in 2015.
Benw
Good news!
burnspbesq
@fake irishman:
Next year. Maybe. In his home county. He’ll walk. Who says jury nullification isn’t a thing?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Elizabelle:
He couldn’t do that if wanted to. And he doesn’t want to.
He is President because he ignored this kind of emo sloganeering.
Court reform is a good idea. It will be a long, difficult political and legislative process, not some Green Lanternist “stroke of a pen” fantasy
Joe Falco
Would that the majority also ruled that the plaintiffs in the case be given a swift kick in the pants then hogtied onto the next freight train to their home state.
Lacuna Synecdoche
Senators Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Patrick Leahy, Ben Ray Lujan, Sherrod Brown, Richard Blumenthal, Et al. via SenateDems @ Twitter:
Here To Stay – New Order
StringOnAStick
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Start first with approving as many federal judges as possible, then the splitting of that too large circuit court. The former fills the open positions with non RW nutjobs, the latter lays the groundwork for a possible USSC expansion if the Senate changes to allow it, but it isn’t worth the expenditure of political capital right now when so much else is on Biden’s already extremely full plate. Evil Mitch focused on filling those judgeship so aggressively for a reason, and we should follow suit. The federal courts are overburdened so split that circuit, approve more judges and harp on how the too small number of courts and judges are rendering “speedy trial” an unconstitutional joke; sell it, make it palatable. Then do it.
Major Major Major Major
I like how Biden reiterated in a tweet today that the ACA remains a “BFD”.
fake irishman
@burnspbesq:
Yeah, I generally agree with your assessment — although Collin County has been changing quite a bit over the last seven years. (Paxton won by 8 there in 2018, vs 35 in 2014. That’s a huge shift even accounting for the different national environments)
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@StringOnAStick: can Biden expand the circuit courts by EO?
Right, it’s a bottom-up, not top-down process. That’s the problem with emo-proggery. It’s all tied up in Green Lanternist, cult-of-the-presidency fantasies, while the right makes hay with state legilsaltures and congressional districts.
catclub
Hasn’t Thomas been doing that for 20 years, already?
Barbara
@burnspbesq: I wasn’t referring to the litigants but to the court itself.
Another Scott
@fake irishman: Your Twitter link didn’t work for me. I assume it is this thread?
Thanks for the pointer.
Cheers,
Scott
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
quick google says no. Lawyers?
Another Scott
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Executive Orders apply to the Executive Branch. IANAL, but there would seem to be obvious Separation of Powers issues if the Executive tried to do anything to the structure of the federal courts without explicit legislation.
Cheers,
Scott.
Mike in NC
Wingnuts will never let this subject go, any more than they’ll ever stop trying to outlaw abortion, abolish Social Security and Medicare, defund public schools, put more guns on the streets, etc.
Frankensteinbeck
@catclub:
Alito is a hack who is descending into frothing ‘fuck you, libtards!’ territory. Thomas is a loon and has always been a loon. The guy is nucking futz. The rest of the conservatives merely have hideous interpretations of actual law, with every once in awhile a descent into “Because I wanna.” Those are much more rare than you would think.
Barbara
@Another Scott: I am still angry that the Fifth Circuit let it get this far. What a complete failure as an appellate court to get this so fucking wrong because they wanted to legislate from the bench.
Steve in the ATL
@The Other Bob: it changes around depending on who filed the appeal.
Smith sues Jones: trial court case is Smith v. Jones
If Smith wins and Jones appeals, then court of appeals case is Jones v. Smith
If Jones wins and Smith appeals, then court of appeals case is Smith v. Jones.
The next appeal could be either Smith v. Jones or Jones v. Smith for the same reasons.
And so on, all the way to SCOTUS in extreme cases.
Very important: it’s “v.”, not “vs.”. Ok, not so important but that’s still how it is.
Steve in the ATL
@Omnes Omnibus:
I’m busy lawyering today, but will digest these decisions later with a bottle of Caymus.
I’ll let someone else address “less than” v. [ha!] “fewer than”.
Mike in NC
OT: Was on the road most of the morning and early afternoon. WaPo reports the president has signed the Juneteenth holiday into law. Will look for a follow-up on the evening national news.
Another Scott
@Barbara: Indeed. Especially given how few cases the SCOTUS takes up these days, they shouldn’t have given them a reason to take the case and waste everyone’s time.
Cheers,
Scott.
Barbara
@Omnes Omnibus: Article III standing arguments are probably not all that interesting or comprehensible to non-lawyers.
Baud
@Frankensteinbeck:
This is the most succinct and accurate description I’ve ever seen.
Baud
@Steve in the ATL:
Don’t most federal appeals court keep the trial court order? The SCT always puts the petitioner first.
fake irishman
@Another Scott: correct Sorry!
marcopolo
@Mike in NC: Yes and congrats to federal employees who will now have a vacation day tomorrow which did not exist on Monday! Lucky ducks.
Cermet
We have all seen extremely insane rulings that the inferior judges used to justify outrageous rulings: they address previous law – what precedent?, then shit rained via their mouths, then some more who gives a f**k??? about precedent and sanity, so we rule against the American people to stick it to liberals – sign rightwing nut jobs.
I am very happy they threw this out – the whiners wasted a great deal of time and the Inferior court spanked the fifth very publicly
I’m one of those ducks … . Ok, we are lucky – should have waited a year so all ducks could be put in a row …so to speak.
fake irishman
@Barbara: agreed. That ruling (and the hearing) was egregious even by Fifth Circuit standards (aka “The Circuit where all nice things go to die”). I expected better out of Elrod.
JoyceH
@LongHairedWeirdo:
>
That’s why I’d like to see the filibuster REFORMED rather than abolished. A process whereby someone who wants to block legislation has to at least take his feet of the desk and leave his office to do so.
If they changed the rules to require 41 votes to sustain a filibuster, rather than 60 votes to break it, that would still give the minority party the ability to block something truly awful that they felt passionately about, but not able, or at least not willing, to be able to block everything just due to simple jackassery.
Omnes Omnibus
@Steve in the ATL: OMG! And that’s one of my pet peeves. I will go slam my fingers in a drawer as punishment.
germy
lowtechcyclist
@Major Major Major Major:
Before this year, it was probably the most famous thing he’d ever said.
Barbara
@Baud: Yes. This is a Supreme Court practice.
Big R
@Omnes Omnibus:
American courts don’t provide advisory opinions. Well, federal courts don’t provide advisory opinions.
A “certified question” is, by definition, an advisory opinion, even if it resolves an actual case in another court.
Old School
@lowtechcyclist:
What’s surpassed it?
Omnes Omnibus
@Big R: Go ahead and file a certified question somewhere. Let me know how it goes.
germy
M31
@Old School: “Will you shut up, man?” is my bet
Citizen Alan
@Mike in NC: Perfect timing. I just got the email 15 minutes ago that the courthouse where I work will be shut down tomorrow for Juneteenth.
mrmoshpotato
@Another Scott: No idea what this is related to, but it struck me as hilarious.
Old School
@M31: That was a good one.
germy
Washington, D.C., circa 1936. “U.S. Supreme Court interiors. Stairwell looking down.”
This photo makes me dizzy.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@lowtechcyclist: Noun, Verb, 9-11.
Villago Delenda Est
Paxton is a dipshit. End of story.
mrmoshpotato
@germy: You’re getting sleeeepy.
Redshift
@LongHairedWeirdo:
I used to believe that (it’s the Capra story we’ve all been raised on), but once I was prompted to look more at the actual historical record, bad things being stopped by a filibuster are vanishingly rare, and good things being blocked by it are commonplace. Just the list of civil rights laws and anti-lynching laws blocked by filibusters is extremely long.
On the particular subject that makes it relevant to this thread, the ACA wasn’t saved by a filibuster; the repeal failed to get 50 votes.
The filibuster is does not have the same effect on both sides; it makes it harder for people who want government to do things, and easier for those who want to prevent it from doing things. Republicans don’t want to do anything at the federal level other than cut taxes for the rich and confirm judges, so the filibuster only hurts our side.
artem1s
Apart From THAT!
best tweet I’ve seen on the ruling today!
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Redshift: as Chris Hayes pointed out, the R’s have effectively eliminated the filibuster for the things they care most about: tax cuts and judges.
and the original gerrymander that is the US Senate is already an anti-majoritarian check on the will of the majority.
James E Powell
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
And the Republicans will eliminate the filibuster for anything else if it stands in the way of something they want to do.
ellie
@Lacuna Synecdoche: Thank you for this! I love New Order but have not heard this version.
Another Scott
@Redshift: Well said.
In addition, ultimately the majority must be able to rule. Anything else is anti-democratic. The minority twisting archaic rules to prevent action does not protect us from bad things – it makes bad things more likely (via selective twisting of the rules).
Yes, it sucks sometimes when the majority does bad things. That’s why it’s important to elect sensible people to public office – so that there’s less chance of bad things happening.
Cheers,
Scott.
WaterGirl
@artem1s: That is too awesome.
artem1s
@lowtechcyclist:
Before this year, it was probably the most famous thing he’d ever said.
MALARKY!
steve g
@JoyceH:
Another way to reform the filibuster would be to make it 60%, not 60 votes. As it stands, senators who are not present are effectively voting no, which is exactly the opposite of the original intent of a filibuster. If you want to filibuster, you should at least have to be present! As a percentage, the votes needed would go down if senators were not present.
Geminid
I am not surprised that Chief Justice Roberts has voted again to uphold the ACA. This issue seems like one of those “if you break it you own it” situations. You don’t have to read Mr. Andersons excellent posts on health care policy to realize this is one hell of a complicated system, with literally life and death consequences to choices made by both legislators and the judges who review their work. Congress may have passed an imperfect law, but if it did that wouldn’t be the first time. Roberts knows how hard it would be to wade into this morass and start working out what government intervention is permissable and what is not. And as some commenters have pointed out, dissenter Alito’s position ultimately calls into to question the validity of Medicare and Medicaid. Roberts would like to preserve the Supreme Court as it is. If the Court ever struck down Medicare, the question wouldn’t be whether to add justices, but how many.