The case was defended as a non-tax because the Anti-Injunction Act (of 1867) limits standing, forbids going to court against a tax that you have not paid.
The bill said it was not a tax, so they ruled it was not a tax for the purposes of the anti injunction act, so the court would review it.
When review of the law took place, the law was found was a permissible exercise of the taxing power, no part of it was struck down.
There is a higher standard for bills that are only theoretically bad (not yet enacted) than there is for bills that have a definite damaged party.
You may recall in the three days of oral arguments, there was an attorney hired by the court to present the argument that it was a tax, and therefore could not be reviewed by the court under the anti injuntion act. Since the government wanted it to not be a tax, they wouldn’t present that argument, and another party was hired to present it.
The issue before this court, in this case, was the only thing Roberts should have ruled on. What was put before the court, the actual case, was indeed a non-tax issue. It should have been tossed away. Looks like Roberts was going to do just that, and then changed his mind. The other 4 conservative judges ruled properly on this issue, not Roberts.
I’ll stick with the 4 conservative judges, not Roberts & the 4 liberal judges on the way this case came down.