If the intent of the law was not a tax...and the court said it is only valid as a tax...then the law is unconstitutional under any other interpretation. As Carney called it a "tax fallacy," then the law cannot stand according to the Court. Right?
That’s my interpretation of what happened.
Roberts essentially ruled that the administration and Congress can call the tax whatever they want. It doesn’t change a thing. They could call it a ham sandwich if they wanted, but from a SCOTUS perspective it’s still a tax. I think the four conservative justices had it right, but I didn’t think Roberts’ ruling was incoherent.