This is a research paper assignment, which by definition, means you must include scholarly research in your paper such as books, scholarly journals and/or law review articles. The paper must be 10-12 pages in length and is worth 30% of your overall grade. It is due in class on Thursday, April 30. You must also upload your paper on Turnitin, which can be found on Blackboard. The paper will analyze and take a position on one of the following constitutional issues that are currently pending before the United States Supreme Court. California v. Texas – Whether the individual and state plaintiffs in this case have established Article III standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), section 5000A(a)?
QUESTION
This is a research paper assignment, which by definition, means you must include scholarly research in your paper such as books, scholarly journals and/or law review articles. The paper must be 10-12 pages in length and is worth 30% of your overall grade. It is due in class on Thursday, April 30. You must also upload your paper on Turnitin, which can be found on Blackboard. The paper will analyze and take a position on one of the following constitutional issues that are currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.
California v. Texas – Whether the individual and state plaintiffs in this case have established Article III standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), section 5000A(a)?
Trump v. Mazars USA – Whether the US House Oversight and Reform Committee have the constitutional and statutory authority to issue subpoenas to President Trump’s accountant demanding private financial records belonging to the president?
Your paper must include the following components: (1) introduction with a thesis statement; (2) provide a overview of the legal issue involved in the case you have selected (not the facts of the underlying case); (3) explain how the USSC or other courts have dealt with the issue(s) or similar issue(s) over time (e.g., what tests or doctrines have the courts used, including the USSC as well as lower courts); and (4) write an opinion from the perspective of the Supreme Court as to how they would decide the issue(s). (Note: I am well aware that legal opinions have been written from lower courts in both cases. Do not simply plan to copy that opinion, you will not get credit if you do.)
Your paper must be word-processed, double-spaced, with 12-point font and 1-inch margins. It must be stapled in the top left-hand corner and have a coversheet. You must cite your sources in the paper. In other words, you must provide a citation within the body of the paper whenever you refer to, or rely on, any source other than your own thoughts. Please use parenthetical citations in the body of the text and set out the full citations in a work cited (no endnotes). Only cite the materials in your work cited that you cite in the body of the paper. Please use MLA format for your parenthetical citations and the sources in your work cited. Your formatting will be graded so you need to format your paper correctly. Relying on formatting websites such as “easy bib” is never recommended. When citing to court opinions in the body of your paper, provide the name of case (underlined), the volume of the reporter, the name of the reporter, the first page of the case, and the year of the case, e.g. Smith v. Jones, 445 U.S. 316 (1994). Do not place cases in your bibliography. Finally, it is never worth turning in a paper late. Your paper will lose 5 points for every day late and 5 points if you fail to meet the 10page minimum
ANSWER
Constitutional Analysis of California v. Texas: Standing to Challenge the Affordable Care Act’s Minimum Coverage Provision
Introduction
The case of California v. Texas revolves around the crucial question of whether the individual and state plaintiffs involved have established Article III standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision, section 5000A(a), of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare. This paper will provide an overview of the legal issue at hand, explore how the United States Supreme Court (USSC) and lower courts have approached similar issues over time, and present an opinion from the perspective of the Supreme Court on how they may decide the standing issue.
Legal Issue Overview
The core legal issue in California v. Texas pertains to the establishment of Article III standing. Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires a plaintiff to demonstrate three elements for standing: (1) an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the defendant’s actions; and (3) a likelihood that the injury can be redressed by a favorable court decision (Standing Requirement: Overview, n.d.). The individual and state plaintiffs argue that the minimum coverage provision of the ACA imposes an unconstitutional burden on them, leading to injury and therefore conferring standing.
Court Precedents and Doctrines
To understand the court’s approach to standing, it is essential to examine previous cases and the doctrines applied. In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), the Supreme Court emphasized that the injury must be “actual or imminent” rather than hypothetical. This requirement ensures that courts do not engage in abstract or advisory opinions. In addition, the causation element must demonstrate a connection between the alleged injury and the defendant’s conduct.
Another important precedent is Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), where the Court recognized that states could establish standing if they could demonstrate an injury to their sovereign interests. However, in Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013), the Court held that private citizens lacked standing to defend state laws, even if state officials chose not to defend them. This decision highlights the significance of a concrete injury in establishing standing.
Opinion from the Supreme Court
From the perspective of the Supreme Court, the key question is whether the individual and state plaintiffs have successfully established Article III standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the ACA. After careful consideration, it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiffs have not met the necessary requirements for standing (Appellate Section – Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 2023).
The Supreme Court is likely to emphasize the importance of a concrete and particularized injury in fact. The minimum coverage provision of the ACA imposes a penalty on individuals who do not obtain health insurance. However, the penalty was reduced to zero by Congress in 2017. As a result, individuals can now choose not to comply with the provision without facing any financial consequence. This change undermines the claim of a concrete injury and weakens the argument for standing.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court may refer to the precedent set in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), where it upheld the individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power. Although the Court stated that the mandate could not be justified under the Commerce Clause, it affirmed that the penalty was a tax and therefore within Congress’s authority (National Federation of Independent Business V. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), n.d.). Given the reduced penalty amount, the plaintiffs may find it challenging to demonstrate a significant burden that rises to the level of an injury in fact.
Conclusion
In conclusion, California v. Texas presents a significant constitutional issue regarding the establishment of Article III standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the ACA. By examining relevant legal precedents and doctrines, it becomes apparent that the individual and state plaintiffs may face difficulty in meeting the necessary requirements for standing. Considering the reduced penalty amount and the absence of a concrete injury, it is likely that the Supreme Court would not find standing in this case. However, it ultimately falls upon the Court to make a final determination based on the arguments and evidence presented before them.
References
Appellate Section – Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. (2023, June 14). https://www.justice.gov/crt/appellate-briefs-and-opinions-2
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). (n.d.). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/519/
Standing Requirement: Overview. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/standing-requirement-overview

We've got everything to become your favourite writing service
Money back guarantee
Your money is safe. Even if we fail to satisfy your expectations, you can always request a refund and get your money back.
Confidentiality
We don’t share your private information with anyone. What happens on our website stays on our website.
Our service is legit
We provide you with a sample paper on the topic you need, and this kind of academic assistance is perfectly legitimate.
Get a plagiarism-free paper
We check every paper with our plagiarism-detection software, so you get a unique paper written for your particular purposes.
We can help with urgent tasks
Need a paper tomorrow? We can write it even while you’re sleeping. Place an order now and get your paper in 8 hours.
Pay a fair price
Our prices depend on urgency. If you want a cheap essay, place your order in advance. Our prices start from $11 per page.