Did either party ever have a chance to address whether the mandate was presented as a tax law?? Seems like there’s a lot of misrepresentation involved if the law was never presented that way, plus the plaintiffs should have a fair chance to address the applicability of the power to tax as a matter of constitutionality.
The solicitor for the administration did argue both in a Florida hearing and in front of the SCOTUS that is was a tax and not a penalty or mandate as it was sold and publicly defended as.
The one other point that may be at issue is that since Harry Reid called the voting rules of the senate as a reconciliation for this bill essentially, making it legally a tax because of the voting rules. Maybe in ruling on all the facts, maybe Roberts had no option, ergo the initial opinion statement that a mandate was unconstitutional.
Certain groups were granted waivers from having to pay what is now a “tax”. Could there now be an issue under equal protection?
Roberts noted at the beginning of his opinion that the question of whether or not it was a tax was expressly asked and denied:
Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
648 F. 3d 1235, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does notbar this suit.
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that thosesubject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individualmandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated asa “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.