SCOTUS - No standing, "GTFO".

[Jimmy Higgins]

7-2, SCOTUS ruled the mandate wasn't unconstitutional, or at least the people who wanted it ruled unconstitutional had no standing to challenge make that claim. The surprise in this case was that Thomas was with the majority and Alito (love child of Scalia and Thomas) and Gorsuch dissented.

Citing the good ole fashioned "no f'n standing" fall back, the court ruled that the States weren't harmed, so they can't whine about it.

Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge §5000A(a)’s minimumessential coverage provision because they have not shown a past orfuture injury fairly traceable to defendants’ conduct enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional.

Thomas was a bit passive aggressive in his concurrence.

There is much to commend JUSTICE ALITO’s account of“our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy.” Post, at 1 (dissentingopinion). This Court has gone to great lengths to rescue theAct from its own text. Post, at 1–2. So have the Act’s defenders, who argued in first instance that the individualcoverage mandate is the Act’s linchpin, yet now, in anabout-face, contend that it is just a throwaway sentence

But, whatever the Act’s dubious history in this Court, wemust assess the current suit on its own terms. And, here,there is a fundamental problem with the arguments advanced by the plaintiffs in attacking the Act—they have notidentified any unlawful action that has injured them. Ante,at 5, 11, 14–16. Today’s result is thus not the consequenceof the Court once again rescuing the Act, but rather of usadjudicating the particular claims the plaintiffs chose tobring.