California v. Texas
E87676
California v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act after Congress reduced the individual mandate penalty to zero.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| California v. Texas canonical | 3 |
| California v. Texas, 593 U.S. ___ (2021) | 1 |
| Texas v. California | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T735138 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: California v. Texas Context triple: [Affordable Care Act, subjectOf, California v. Texas]
-
A.
Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
-
B.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
C.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
-
D.
Van Orden v. Perry
Van Orden v. Perry is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on Texas State Capitol grounds against an Establishment Clause challenge.
-
E.
United States v. Lopez
United States v. Lopez is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked the first time in decades the Court struck down a federal law for exceeding Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, signaling a revival of limits on federal regulatory authority.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: California v. Texas Target entity description: California v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act after Congress reduced the individual mandate penalty to zero.
-
A.
Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
-
B.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
C.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
-
D.
Van Orden v. Perry
Van Orden v. Perry is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on Texas State Capitol grounds against an Establishment Clause challenge.
-
E.
United States v. Lopez
United States v. Lopez is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked the first time in decades the Court struck down a federal law for exceeding Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, signaling a revival of limits on federal regulatory authority.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
federal court case ⓘ |
| alsoKnownAs |
California v. Texas
ⓘ
surface form:
California v. Texas, 593 U.S. ___ (2021)
California v. Texas ⓘ
surface form:
Texas v. California
|
| arguedDate | November 10, 2020 ⓘ |
| background | Congress reduced the individual mandate penalty to zero in 2017 ⓘ |
| challengedProvision | 26 U.S.C. § 5000A (individual mandate) ⓘ |
| challengedStatute |
Affordable Care Act
ⓘ
surface form:
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
|
| citation | 593 U.S. ___ (2021) ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedDate | June 17, 2021 ⓘ |
| defendantsIncluded | federal government officials responsible for implementing the ACA ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy |
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
ⓘ
surface form:
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
|
| dissentJoinedBy | Neil M. Gorsuch ⓘ |
| docketNumber |
19-1019
ⓘ
19-840 ⓘ |
| effect |
Affordable Care Act
ⓘ
surface form:
Affordable Care Act remained in force
|
| hasParty |
United States Secretary of Health and Human Services
ⓘ
surface form:
Alex Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
Donald Trump ⓘ
surface form:
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al.
California, United States ⓘ
surface form:
State of California
Texas ⓘ
surface form:
State of Texas
United States of America ⓘ |
| holding |
plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision of the ACA
ⓘ
NFIB v. Sebelius ⓘ
surface form:
the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the constitutional challenge to the individual mandate
|
| intervenor |
California, United States
ⓘ
surface form:
State of California
other states supporting the ACA ⓘ |
| issue |
whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge the ACA after the individual mandate penalty was set to zero
ⓘ
whether the individual mandate is severable from the rest of the ACA ⓘ whether the individual mandate without a penalty is constitutional ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Amy Coney Barrett
ⓘ
Brett M. Kavanaugh ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ Elena Kagan ⓘ John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Affordable Care Act
ⓘ
individual mandate ⓘ severability ⓘ standing ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| originatedFrom |
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
ⓘ
surface form:
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ⓘ
surface form:
Northern District of Texas
|
| plaintiffsIncluded | individual plaintiffs in Texas ⓘ |
| relatedLegislation | Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ⓘ |
| result | judgment of the Fifth Circuit vacated and case remanded with instructions to dismiss ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2020 ⓘ |
| topic |
United States constitutional law
ⓘ
federal jurisdiction ⓘ health care law ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: California v. Texas Description of subject: California v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act after Congress reduced the individual mandate penalty to zero.
Referenced by (5)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
Affordable Care Act
this entity surface form:
Texas v. California
this entity surface form:
California v. Texas, 593 U.S. ___ (2021)