Roberts legislated from the bench that it wasn't a mandate, but in fact, it was a tax.
If I remember correctly that if it had remained a mandate that the vote was 7-2 against it.
Near as I can tell though they called it a mandate, it never mandated anything. Thus was a mandate in name only. Thus was and is clearly a tax. No different than the rest of income taxes, where the government picks and chooses what to exempt from tax and when to double down on tax to punish us for our sins of liberty.
Once again the commerce clause argument for the mandate was struck down as unconstitutional. please read the whole link. from the supreme court link I posted.
I read briefs for a living. I've already been through this case in detail, for fun. Yes the argument for using the commerce clause to defend basis for the OCA mandate was not affirmed. So what? The argument that won the case was that the OCA mandate is not a mandate, it's a tax. IOW the government used an incorrect term to describe the law. Apparently it's not UN-consitutional to be a piss poor writer / deceiver when writing new tax bills / laws in DC.