| ▲ | TimorousBestie 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
> Do they? Honest question. Is there a law that says fees must be in some sense justified? 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. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | dpark an hour ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
From what I can tell with a quick reading, it is not. The opinion states that the fee is a tax and not a penalty and based on that ruling then further rules that the tax oversteps Congress’s delegated authority. 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. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||