OK, I got a look at the text of the bill. The mandate, i.e. the requirement to have a policy that meets the Obiecare standards is still in force. What they did was change the amount of the “tax” (fine) for not having one to zero. The effect of that is you’re required to have the policy, but the ability to opt out by paying the “tax” is gone. What’s left is a mandate (requirement) to buy insurance that you can’t buy your way out of. That’s an unconstitutional mandate, so that’s apparently what they’re arguing.
The dicta in the original Supreme Court decision addressed that issue and concluded that the ability to avoid the insurance requirement by paying the fine was the only thing preventing it from being unconstitutional, so I think they have a good argument.
This is a long way of saying the mandate wasn’t repealed, they just set the amount of the fine to zero. I wonder if they knew they were eliminating the only thing saving the mandate by doing so? I suspect: yes.
I like the fact that they picked a district with a rational court of appeals.
Irt your 25. You are right. They did zero it out. Seems to me it is some what safe for the time being in that they would have to reverse the process to start taxing again.