Althouse

"The justices ruled 7-2 that Texas and 17 other states lacked standing to argue that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional" — SCOTUSblog reports.  

Here's the opinion.

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.

Looking at that, I'm most interested in why Justice Thomas concurred: 

JUSTICE ALITO [dissenting] does not contest [the majority's] analysis. Rather, he argues that the state plaintiffs can establish standing another way: through “inseverability.” (“First, [the States] contend that the individual mandate is unconstitutional . . . . Second, they argue that costly obligations imposed on them by other provisions of the ACA cannot be severed from the mandate. If both steps of the States’ argument that the challenged enforcement actions are unlawful are correct, it follows that the Government cannot lawfully enforce those obligations against the States”). This theory offers a connection between harm and unlawful conduct. And, it might well support standing in some circumstances, as it has some support in history and our case law.

But, I do not think we should address this standing- through-inseverability argument for several reasons. First, the plaintiffs did not raise it below, and the lower courts did not address it in any detail.... Second, the state plaintiffs did not raise this theory in their opening brief before this Court... and they did not even clearly raise it in reply. Third, this Court has not addressed standing-through-inseverability in any detail, largely relying on it through implication.... And fourth, this Court has been inconsistent in describing whether inseverability is a remedy or merits question.... Thus, standing-through-inseverability could only be a valid theory of standing to the extent it treats inseverability as a merits exercise of statutory interpretation. But petitioners have proposed no such theory.

In 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with the court’s four more liberal justices that the mandate was constitutional because the penalty imposed on individuals who did not buy health insurance was a tax, which the Constitution allows Congress to impose. But in 2017, Congress enacted an amendment to the ACA that set the penalty for not buying health insurance at zero – but left the rest of the ACA in place. That change led to the dispute that is now before the court: A group of states led by Texas (along with several individuals) went to federal court, where they argued that because the penalty for not buying health insurance is zero, it is no longer a tax and the mandate is therefore unconstitutional. And the mandate is such an integral part of the ACA, they contended, that the rest of the law must be struck down as well....

YOUNG WOMAN:  "My current insurance isn't perfect, but with your plan, I'd have to give it up, and that makes me nervous."

ELIZABETH WARREN: "You know what? I hear this from a lot of people, so let me help you understand. Your insurance is like a bad boyfriend. Girl, listen to me. You need to leave him. He’s draining you. You deserve better. Dump his ass!"

YOUNG WOMAN (getting emotional):  "I know! You're right! I'm settling! But I'm just scared to leave because what if it's the best I can get?"

ELIZABETH WARREN: "Girlfriend, how much is your deductible?"

YOUNG WOMAN (breaking down into painful tears): "$8,000. I don't even have dental. My teeth hurt so bad!"

ELIZABETH WARREN: "All right. You listen to me, you beautiful bitch. Here's what's going to happen. You’re going to call him and you’re going to end it. And I’m going to come right over with an apple strudel and we’re going to post up on the couch and watch my favorite show, which is somehow 'Ballers.’ And then one day — one day — Blue Cross/Blue Shield is going to text you from the club saying, 'Baby, I miss you.' And you’re going to say: 'New phone, who dis?' Okay, girlfriend? You're going to be just fine! Do you believe that?"

I support immigration reform that’s consistent with our values, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and expanded legal immigration consistent with my principles. That’s not only the right thing to do – it also increases federal revenue we can dedicate to Medicare for All as new people come into the system and pay taxes. Based on CBO’s analysis of the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill, experts project that immigration reform would generate an additional $400 billion in direct federal revenue.

Readers have to view these proposals mostly as political messaging statements.

Sanders acknowledges that he will raise taxes on most Americans, but argues that all but the wealthy will experience a net gain in income. Harris is trying to one-up him by saying that she would not impose additional taxes on the middle class, even though Sanders’s pitch is exactly the opposite — that the middle class will experience higher incomes and lower health-care costs. She sidesteps the issue of whether most Americans should pay some kind of premium to get their health care, as they do currently under both Medicare and Obamacare.

Her proposal to impose a financial transactions tax would roughly make up for the lost revenue from not imposing premiums on people making less than $100,000 — but there could be gaping holes elsewhere.

I know some of you were very sad about the way the Mueller report let Donald Trump off the hook. Even if you secretly doubted that he was actually well-organized enough to run an international conspiracy, it made you depressed to see him looking so happy.

But then he took off on the worst victory lap since — well, do you remember that baseball player who celebrated his grand slam home run by leaping in the air and fracturing a leg?

“We’re not talking about health care right now, but I will,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday.

He also vowed to make the Republicans “the party of health care.” Great strategy!

MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Barrasso who was just here said that he does think there's room for legislation to protect preexisting conditions, one of the things that would get thrown out with this ruling if it's upheld. Would you--

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: But I just mentioned a number of other things that would also have to be done. So the best thing here--

MARGARET BRENNAN: But is there room for Democrats to work on those sort of issue specific things with Republicans?

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: There's always room to work on things but the best way - and what I believe will happen - is this will be stayed in court. So it continues to take effect. Then it will go up on appeal. It will be upheld.