Even once you get past standing, it’s difficult to see how the individual mandate, previously found by the Supreme Court as constitutional, would be rendered unconstitutional in the absence of a penalty. John Roberts’ Obamacare ruling determined, “Neither the act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.” What the 2017 law did, thus, was effectively make sure that everybody was automatically in compliance. The tax law did not even technically eliminate the existence of the mandate penalties, it just reduced them to $0. How can a toothless mandate be an unconstitutional act of coercion when the Supreme Court ruled that a mandate with actual teeth was constitutional?
But even if the court decides to strike down the underlying mandate in the wake of the tax law, it’s harder still to see why judges would be forced to scrap the entire law. Legislative history surrounding the rationale for putting the individual mandate in the original law in 2010 is not relevant given that in 2017, Congress explicitly decided that it was fine strike down the mandate penalties while keeping the rest of the law intact.