The biggest con­tro­ver­sy, and the item that pushed the ACA over the goal line, was Chief Jus­tice Roberts sid­ing with his lib­er­al col­leagues and approv­ing the law, based on dis­put­ed log­ic that likened the man­date penal­ty on indi­vid­u­als to a tax, and thus sub­ject to fed­er­al approval (and Supreme Court affir­ma­tion).  When the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment decid­ed to elim­i­nate the penal­ty, they also elim­i­nat­ed the Supreme Court jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for ACA con­tin­u­a­tion.  That was upheld in a recent US Court of Appeals deci­sion (Fifth Cir­cuit), say­ing the man­date is now unconstitutional.

Now the states who joined the orig­i­nal suit and the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives have filed two peti­tions ask­ing the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue imme­di­ate­ly for both its con­sti­tu­tion­al posi­tion and the ACA via­bil­i­ty if the man­date is struck down.