I'm sure I'm not the first one to mention this, but unless the appeal includes auto insurance, how can we justify the latter while ruling the former unconstitutional? At least the former doesn't amount to an (completely) unfunded mandate
Not paying attention, eh?
Auto insurance differs in two regards: 1) If you don't have a car or don't drive on public roads you don't need it; 2) auto insurance is mandated by the states, not the fed gov.
I have no problem with a state like MA mandating coverage. It's dumb, but well within their powers. I do have a problem with the fed gov doing so, which clearly exceeds their powers.