California v. Texas (19-840)

argument 19-840

California v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States 2h 0m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Supreme Court hearing in the California v. Texas case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case nineteen eight forty, California versus Texas, and the consolidated case. General Mongan.

Unknown 0:11

Chief Justice and may it please the court. In N FIB, this court construed section five thousand A of the Affordable Care Act to create a choice. Either obtain the health insurance addressed in sub A or pay the tax described in sub B. In twenty seventeen, Congress didn't change sub A or sub B. Just reduce the amount of attacks to zero. Five thousand A still presents a choice either buy insurance or do nothing. That inoperative provision doesn't harm anyone and it doesn't violate the constitution. Now respondents insist that the twenty seventeen amendment requires the court to tear down the entire ACA, but that theory rests on two untenable arguments. First, respondents contend that Congress transformed sub A into a command when it zeroed out the task.

Unknown 1:00

That reading is contrary to this court's construction of the same text. It's at odds with how Congress and the President understood the amendment, and it would attribute to Congress an intent to do exactly what this court said would be unconstitutional. Second, respondents argue that if this single provision is now unconstitutional, then every other provision of the Act must also fall. But the starting point of any remedial analysis would be the strong presumption in favor of severability. And here the text and statutory structure powerfully confirm that presumption. After a year of debate about the future of the ACA, Congress made a single surgical change. It made five thousand A unenforceable by eliminating the only legal consequence for not buying insurance and it kept every other provision in place.

Unknown 1:50

So we know the rest of the act should remain in effect if five thousand A is held to be unenforceable because that's the very framework Congress itself has already created. Chief Justice, I welcome the court's question.

John G. Roberts 2:05

Uh thank you, General Mongen. Uh if I I I'd like to begin with the standing issues. Uh is someone who does not follow the mandate and purchase insurance uh violating the law?

Unknown 2:17

Not on our view, Your Honor. We we think that this is a in operative provision and there is no legal command. But e even if the court were to accept the plaintiff's theory that it is a command At the sanding stage. They still can't establish standing because there's no threat or even any possibility that that command would be enforced against them.

John G. Roberts 2:40

Well, so i i if someone who doesn't purchase insurance pursuant to the mandate uh applies for a job down the road and uh has to fill out a questionnaire asking whether you've ever violated a law, uh which which box should he check, yes or no?

Unknown 2:56

Well I think if their view, Your Honor, is that this is a command, I suppose they'd have to say that they'd violated the law. And if they had alleged that they were applying for such a job and that the employer was going to use such a form, then that might be a viable theory of standing. But of course there's no such allegation uh before us here today.

John G. Roberts 3:16

Well, let's say Congress uh passes a law saying everybody has to mow their lawn once a week. Uh and they even make a lot of findings about why that's a good thing. You know, it makes the country look neater, you get fresh air if you have to do that. Supports the lawn mower business. Um and uh but the fine for violating it is zero zero dollars. Um do they have standing? I mean the the neighbors will see that they're not obeying the law, uh uh the objective of Congress will not be uh fulfilled. Uh in other words, there'll certainly be uh injury uh to that person and uh I wonder why I wonder if under your theory that person would not be able to uh challenge the law.

Unknown 4:00

I don't think that they would be on the theory that they've altered their conduct to comply with the law a and i i they've suffered some some injury. I think that follows from this court's cases in Poe and Holder and American booksellers, that it's not enough to say that I'm injured by complying with the law. You also have to show some real threat of enforcement.