Supreme Court Case: California v. Texas
The substantial ruling for the court case California v. Texas stated that Texas and the
other states plaintiff do not have outstanding challenge according to the Constitution of the
United States when dealing with the Affordable Care Act. While this was the ruling, the court
case was for California’s necessity to uphold this the Affordable Care Act. The other side was
Texas suing the Federal Government for looking to take down the Affordable Care Act. Time
spent in court ranged from February 26, 2018 and proceeded unto June 17, 2021. While the court
case took a total of two years to come to a decision and final ruling, the states involved have
come to their own consensus. These same court proceedings took place in a seven-to-two vote in
favor of California and in their seeking to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Court cases that
occurred around the same time had been discussed previously about the same issue. This issue
being about the Affordable Care Act, formally known as, Obamacare. The ruling was decided
that there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that the defendants’ claims were valid and due
to that inefficiency of evidence, the court decided that the opposition was in favor seven-to-two.
Effort between both parties were made evident as the court was taken to the highest-level order.
The reason for this ruling was stated earlier in that the basis was predicated upon the necessity to
uphold the Affordable Care Act which, again, is also know as Obamacare. Reasoning for this can
be explained simply as two sides opposing the idea of people needing healthcare. A further
explanation as to what Affordable Care Act is can be characterized as a health coverage plan for
those that would not be able to afford health care usually. This development during times of
Covid could have been a large part as to why more could have needed health care and rising
costs for those who may not have been able to afford it. There are many other factors brought in
by each side and their own opposing counterparts. Each side had evidence to support their own
claims as a necessity obviously but there was more on the basis of the foundation as a whole.
California’s opposition can best be characterized as one that upheld the continuity of the
Affordable Care Act and was made more relevant in their reasonings behind how they support
their own position. This is made throughout the court case hearing and their position on these
“vital” topics are relayed to the jury. The institution for Obamacare, is their position and how the
policy came into today’s politics. The overall verdict in the case for California was the to keep
the policy up and running, so to speak. In 2010, Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act
which created an establishment for those who needed the coverage for and made it so that those
that cannot qualify for the coverage, taxable. The opposition, in this case, was made very clear as
there was not sufficient evidence to support that the people that did not qualify under this ruling,
was in fact not unconstitutional. The opposition, in this case, the Northern District of Texas was
under the ruling that under article three challenged the minimum coverage needed to actually
qualify under the Affordable Care Act. Petitioners outside of the Supreme Court fighting the
opposition would make such remarks as "No plaintiff has established standing and, in any event,
an unenforceable minimum coverage provision does not offend the Constitution. ... Under the
circumstances here there can be no doubt that Congress wanted to keep the rest of the ACA in
place even without an enforceable minimum coverage provision, because that is precisely the
effect of the amendment that Congress itself enacted (in a quote from one of the petitioners in
favor of the down scale of the sue).” It is evident here that the proceedings were important to
those who are in need of the health care, and this is one of the points made by the side of
California. In the days leading up to the final hearings of the court case, the trail had been
changed in favor of unconstitutional to constitutional for a while and was made clear that the
opposing view had not been nullified. But this is something that will be discussed at a later time.
However, it is still important that it is recognized as it did affect the hearings from the opposing
side as well as the same side.
The Northern District of Texas had another say in this court case. Their position was
stated clearly as one that would use the Federal Government for actions that they deemed
unconstitutional due to the individual mandate being removed, thus deeming it unconstitutional.
In the larger scope, majority of this position was agreed upon until the district judge deemed this
as something that is not unconstitutional and that there may not be any further question as it is
law. In this opposition, it was clear that the Federal Government was in agreeance with the
position that the ruling would be made unconstitutional as well as the plaintiff. This was
overturned at a later time by the U.S. House of Representatives. As one might imagine, this
would create an aggression towards the decisions that came to be in the Supreme Court, and one
might also note that the position was nullified by this decision as by intervening. Not only was
the House of Representatives involved in this case, so was the District of Columbia as well as
sixteen other states. Prior to the hearing from the Federal Government, the judge appointed to the
case in December 2018 (Reed O’Connor), ruled that it was unconstitutional making it so that the
position taken by the Northern District of Texas was had made their point and had won.
However, as previously discussed, the ruling had been intervened and made obsolete. In the later
rulings the court had shifted from one that had been in favor of deeming the law unconstitutional,
to one that had deemed the ruling constitutional and changed the oppositions views making it a
place for protestors and other who might agree on the side of California, much more engaged
during the trials. This was also made clear as it had been intervened by a large body that
represented the United States, that being U.S. House of Representatives.
Explaining the position in the courts as a whole could be described as mixed. This is due
to the fact as there were multiple times where the position on the ruling had changed. This being
one of the times during the appointment of judge Reed O’Connor in which the basis for the sue
had been deemed within reasonable suspicion to be unconstitutional. As discussed previously,
this was the first ruling as it had made it to the district court of the Northern District of Texas and
was the first rendition of the ruling. That being said the next step was to take it to the United
States Court of Appeals where it had also been deemed that the earlier ruling would stand and
there would have not been intervention as this point in time. During the time of rendition, there
was also the concern that there had been opposing views to the overturning of the ruling as there
had been much talk about it at this point in time. It was around December 2018 that the first
ruling had been made and it would take another year for the rendition of the U.S. Court of
Appeals to make their decision based on the evidence provided by the Northern District Court of
Texas. The following year in January of 2020 protestors voted to have this challenged in a higher
order of court, that being the Supreme Court, where the ruling would have been made obsolete in
the long run as the verdict was overturned and it was made to that the sue was not deem able in
coincidence with The Northern District Courts. The petitioners would make it so that the court
case would be heard again in March 2020 in around the same time the case would have been
brought back to trial and made more relevant in terms of the hearing across the opposition. This
being said, another way to deem this appropriate was the initiation of the vote based on the
petitioners of the opposing side of Texas, in this case. It would not be for several months that the
hearing would be agreed to, and the opening arguments would be heard until November of 2020
which can also be characterized as the oral presentation of the argument. The court case in itself
would have taken a very long time in the eyes of the district suing in the first place as the next
ruling would not have been until another year later in February. In this specific time frame, the
U.S. Government would have chosen to change the points of view as previously discussed and
make the ruling reversable as there had been communication between them and the U.S.
Supreme Court. Although the final messages needed to be had due to his reversal, there had also
been another ruling that would have attempted to remove this ruling, but since this was the
higher level of court, no such thing would have occurred. Finally, the last say in the messages
leading up to the decision, the U.S. Supreme Court would have stated that the ruling made in the
United States Court of Appeals 5th Circuit would have been nullified and therefore, concluding
the reversal of the court deeming it unconstitutional to constitutional, as stated before, there was
not sufficient evidence provided that would make the sue legally unconstitutional.
One might go as far to say that the reversal was also a part of a sort of unfair treatment, as
there ruling had been deemed already. However, the opposition would later state that this is
hereby the way in which voting for the petitioners would be valid. This is also later recognized at
the final hearing of the court case, not to mention that it had made it all the way to the U.S.
Supreme Court. In many of the questions presented, the question presented during the lower
court trials was simply stated by the opposition “Whether the individual and state plaintiffs in
this case have established Article III standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision in
Section 5000A(a). (2) Whether reducing the amount specified in Section 5000A(c) to zero
rendered the minimum coverage provision unconstitutional. (3) If so, whether the minimum
coverage provision is severable from the rest of the ACA.” Another worthy note is the discussion
at the questioning would have been in favor of the judge as there had been talk prior before it
would have been handed off the judge to handle the evaluation of said questioning as well as the
time allocated for the defendant and the plaintiff. Noting this is impactful as it would have been a
long battle in the future.
In this particular court case, there had been an occasion where a certain justice would
have pointed out that the ruling was simply made against the plaintiff as a ruling that was made
not unlawful in any manner. This would later shift in favor the defendant as there had been this
occurrence and changing points of view throughout the entirety of the court case. There also had
been instances of the rulings change through the view of the petitioners who signed to get the
ruling looked at a second time by the U.S. Supreme Court. Factors such as this one would have
been the main cause of the overturning of the verdict and also aid the idea of reinforcement of
the opposing views during the case. This goes to show how the viewpoints in an upper level of
court are appealed as well as the shift in thinking across higher members of our society.
Final rulings in this court case were made obvious as through the upper courts and it is
made evident that in the technical terminology of the law, there are objections to which those
may see unfit in a court of such high precedence. Another thing to note is the people’s say in
these court cases and rulings and the fact that there were many petitioners who would come
forward and have a vote on whether or not to revisit this case. To a large extent, it was worthy in
terms of the votes on the second hearing as it was overturned, and the law had been made clear to
the plaintiff and the District Court of Appeals 5th Circuit. It is also recognizable that the level of
order between the courts was made in a fashionable manner that could be characterized as the
Judiciary view of the United States. A power that can be exercised by theses courts in cases that
make it to that point, is vital when talking about terms of the root for our system. From the initial
oral presentation all the way to the final decision would have taken two years to finish and it also
shows that the visitation of these courts made possible by the people is important as the say was
exclusively given to the people who decided to make these votes on a second hearing.
The constitutional challenge was made evident because the opposition because Congress
would change the law in terms of the Affordable Care Act and would not bring in any revenue
and would render the individual mandate unconstitutional. The synopsis might include that the
U.S. Government would have been in agreeance with the theory that this would have been
unconstitutional. This is a basic rendition of the position presented by the Northern District of
Courts of Texas and would remain in the following future proceedings. This also goes to show
that the true meaning of the constitution also trumps the law in regard to cases such as this one as
well as others that follow suit. The more that one is to dictate and question the lawful or unlawful
conduct of Congress, in this case, the more that questions will arise if the statements and the
ruling that proceed in the future are constitutional. This is a vital part of what it means that the
people have the right to question the authority of those in power. To challenge the opposition for
what one might deem irrefutable evidence to suggest that power might have ben used incorrectly
here. This use of power had been checked multiple times, in this case, and had been also sort of
linear in terms of how it was checked. It is also evident that cases like this one have to be put
through “a system of checks and balances” and one could see that here this is exactly what
happened. The break down and analysis of the court case was made very prevalent to both the
defendant and the plaintiff, and the judges involved. Although the viewpoints had changed
multiple times, and the breakdown of the law was a necessity to provide evidence to suggest that
it may or may not have been unconstitutional or constitutional, is an essential part of how the
U.S. Government and Congress works in the United States. One might go as far to say that it is
vital to have this sort of attention to these sorts of problems because they do affect the people
that are using the programs as discussed and it relates to them directly.
Majority vote was most definitely in favor of the people who would later arise to the
issue that they saw fit. A basic iteration of these ideas was enough to completely shift the case
and shows the true importance of having the ideas behind the people’s voice who made the
second hearing and the second oral presentation of the ideas presented by both the plaintiff and
the defendant. The judges are the elected officials by the people who are also using their own
voice to give say in the renditions of the law that they may have deemed inappropriate when it
coincides between the laws made by Congress and the revision of the laws to characterize them
most appropriately under the constitution in a timely manner. Through the appropriate use of
resources given to the people and the basic human rights given to people, the answer to those
questions they have about decisions being made for the by higher ups, have the precedence to be
overturned by those who might disagree all predicated upon by the constitution itself. In the final
advance, the basic takeaway could be best described in a manner as appropriately voting to see
those right being upheld by citizens who have been through their own ideas and to present them
in a civil manner to which they may be evaluated and followed through to better aid in the
understanding of how their lives are affected as well as their voices being listened to. The
essential part to most of the arguments heard in the case was the importance of revisions to be
deemed necessary in a court of law. This court of law, as previously mentioned, being a lower
court to a higher court and an even higher court. This importance of the fundamentals being
challenged was in large part of a mixed review of what might have been infringed upon and
better explains the reasonings behind basic rendition and evaluation of a voice heard in multiple
occurrences.
Sources:

Thomas, Clarence. “California v. Texas.” Ballotpedia,
https://ballotpedia.org/California_v._Texas.

Opinion, Breyer. “California v. Texas.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information
Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-840.

Frampton, Thomas Ward, and Madhav Khosla. “California v. Texas.” Harvard Law
Review, 10 Nov. 2021, https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/california-v-texas/.

MaryBeth Musumeci
Published: Sep 01, 2020. “Explaining California v. Texas: A Guide to the Case
Challenging the ACA.” KFF, 2 Sept. 2020, https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issuebrief/explaining-california-v-texas-a-guide-to-the-case-challenging-the-aca/.

Watson, Julia. “Episode III: California v. Texas: American Journal of Law &
Medicine.” Cambridge Core, Cambridge University Press, 17 Mar. 2022,
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-law-andmedicine/article/abs/episode-iii-california-vtexas/CAE2E8042A1F9B93036BE5675AE19887.