Roberts decision makes no sense. In the first part of it, he says the penalty is not a tax. In part four (?) he construes it to be a tax. There’s no need to interpret what the statute means, because the clear language indicates it’s a penalty. Furthermore, the legislative history indicates it is a penalty, and is not intended to be a tax.
If the majority had held in the first party that it was, in fact, a tax, there would be nothing further to decide, because under the Anti-Injunction Act, the NFIB would have no standing to bring the suit.
Sorry, “in the first part”.