evidence: From the start the Trump Administration refused to defend the ACA, an unprecedented move that seems to have led two senior career attorneys to withdraw from the case and one to resign. But the government’s specific position on the case changed. In June 2018 the Justice Department largely agreed with the plaintiffs’ reasoning, but it asked the court to strike down not the entire law but two critical consumer protections that it said were inextricably linked to the mandate: the prohibitions on insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (guaranteed issue) and on charging people higher premiums because of their health status (community rating). Later, the Trump Administration endorsed striking down the entire ACA, in line with its many legislative and executive attempts to repeal or undermine it. [...] Striking down the ACA would have increased the number of uninsured people by 21 million, or 69 percent, the Urban Institute estimated in October 2020. (Urban also provided estimates by state and demographic group.) And striking down the law would have ended not only the ACA’s major coverage expansions — such as Medicaid expansion, premium tax credits, and health insurance marketplaces ― but other important protections as well, harming tens of millions of people.