Read the opinion, it isn’t very long. This facet in particular is discussed in detail there.
> They gave a definition of fee vs tax that is based on a meaningful distinction and not what it happens to be called.
GP sounds likes he’s trying out for the inevitable appeal, the tax/fee distinctions argued in the case came from different case law.
The whole penalty thing seems weird because obviously it’s not a penalty, so I don’t know if the president’s lawyers argued a dumb point and lost or if I’m missing some legal nuance here.
Regardless, the opinion is based on the ruling that the fee amounts to a tax, not that fees must be justified.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.293...
> I don’t know if the president’s lawyers argued a dumb point and lost
They argued several dumb points, you’ll have to narrow it down.
> They argued several dumb points, you’ll have to narrow it down.
Arguing that the fee is a “penalty” in this case seems pointlessly dumb.
Seems like they should have argued the fee a “fee”.