[TimorousBestie]

> 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]

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.

[TimorousBestie]

Page 18 and ff.

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.

[dpark]

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Page 18 is the tax vs penalty discussion I referred to.

> 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”.