Posted yesterday:

Rivkin and Casey: The Opening for a Fresh ObamaCare
Challenge
By defining the mandate as a tax, one that will not be uniformly
applied, the Supreme Court ran afoul of the Constitution.

ObamaCare provides that low-income taxpayers, who are
nevertheless above the federal poverty line, can discharge their
mandate-tax obligation by enrolling in the new, expanded Medicaid
program, which serves as the functional equivalent of a tax credit.
But that program will not now exist in every state because, as a
matter of federal law, states can opt out. The actual tax burden
will not be geographically uniform as the court’s precedents
require.

Thus, having transformed the individual mandate into a tax, the
court may face renewed challenges to ObamaCare on uniformity
grounds. The justices will then confront a tough choice. Having
earlier reinterpreted the mandate as a tax, they would be
hard-pressed to approve the geographic disparity created when
states opt out of the Medicaid expansion. But that possibility is
inherent in a scheme that imposes a nominally uniform tax liability
accompanied by the practical equivalent of a fully off-setting tax
credit available only to those living in certain states. To uphold
such a taxing scheme would eliminate any meaningful uniformity
requirement—a result that the Constitution does not permit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/…..=Obamacare