Politics

Obamacare survives: Supreme Court dismisses big challenge

Published

5 years ago

June 17, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court dismissed a major challenge to the Obama era health care law on Thursday, turning aside an effort by Republican-led states to throw out the law that provides insurance coverage for millions of Americans.

The justices, by a 7-2 vote, left the entire law intact in ruling that Texas, other GOP-led states and two individuals had no right to bring their lawsuit in federal court. The Biden administration says 31 million people have health insurance because of the law popularly known as “Obamacare.”

The law’s major provisions include protections for people with pre-existing health conditions, a range of no-cost preventive services and the expansion of the Medicaid program that insures lower-income people, including those who work in jobs that don’t pay much or provide health insurance.

Also left in place is the law’s now-toothless requirement that people have health insurance or pay a penalty. Congress rendered that provision irrelevant in 2017 when it reduced the penalty to zero.

The elimination of the penalty had become the hook that Texas and other Republican-led states, as well as the Trump administration, used to attack the entire law. They argued that without the mandate, a pillar of the law when it was passed in 2010, the rest of the law should fall, too.

And with a more conservative Supreme Court that includes three Trump appointees, opponents of Obamacare hoped a majority of the justices would finally kill off the law they have been fighting against for more than a decade.

But the third major attack on the law at the Supreme Court ended the way the first two did, with a majority of the court rebuffing efforts to gut the law or get rid of it altogether.

Trump’s three appointees to the Supreme Court — Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — split their votes. Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the majority. Gorsuch was in dissent, signing on to an opinion from Justice Samuel Alito.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court that the states and people who filed a federal lawsuit “have failed to show that they have standing to attack as unconstitutional the Act’s minimum essential coverage provision.”

In dissent, Alito wrote, “Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two. In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue.” Alito was a dissenter in the two earlier cases, as well.

Like Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas was in dissent in the two earlier cases, but he joined Thursday’s majority, writing, “Although this Court has erred twice before in cases involving the Affordable Care Act, it does not err today.”

Because it dismissed the case for the plaintiff’s lack of legal standing — the ability to sue — the court didn’t actually rule on whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional now that there is no penalty for forgoing insurance. Lower courts had struck down the mandate, in rulings that were wiped away by the Supreme Court decision.

With the latest ruling, the ACA is “here to stay for the foreseeable future,” said Larry Levitt, an executive vice president for the non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies health care.

“Democrats are in charge and they have made reinvigorating and building on the ACA a key priority,” Levitt said. “Republicans don’t seem to have much enthusiasm for continuing to try to overturn the law.”

Republicans pressed their argument to invalidate the whole law even though congressional efforts to rip out the entire law “root and branch,” in Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell’s words, have failed. The closest they came was in July 2017 when Arizona Sen. John McCain, who died the following year, delivered a dramatic thumbs-down vote to a repeal effort by fellow Republicans.

Chief Justice John Roberts said during arguments in November that it seemed the law’s foes were asking the court to do work best left to the political branches of government.

The court’s decision preserves benefits that became part of the fabric of the nation’s health care system.

Polls show that the 2010 health care law grew in popularity as it endured the heaviest assault. In December 2016, just before Obama left office and Trump swept in calling the ACA a “disaster,” 46% of Americans had an unfavorable view of the law, while 43% approved, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll. Those ratings flipped and by February of this year 54% had a favorable view, while disapproval had fallen to 39% in the same ongoing poll.

The health law is now undergoing an expansion under President Joe Biden, who sees it as the foundation for moving the U.S. to coverage for all. His giant COVID-19 relief bill significantly increased subsidies for private health plans offered through the ACA’s insurance markets, while also dangling higher federal payments before the dozen states that have declined the law’s Medicaid expansion. About 1 million people have signed up with HealthCare.gov since Biden reopened enrollment amid high levels of COVID cases earlier this year.

Most of the people with insurance because of the law have it through Medicaid expansion or the health insurance markets that offer subsidized private plans. But its most popular benefit is protection for people with pre-existing medical conditions. They cannot be turned down for coverage on account of health problems, or charged a higher premium. While those covered under employer plans already had such protections, “Obamacare” guaranteed them for people buying individual policies.

Another hugely popular benefit allowed young adults to remain on their parents’ health insurance until they turn 26. Before the law, going without medical coverage was akin to a rite of passage for people in their 20s getting a start in the world.

Because of the ACA, most privately insured women receive birth control free of charge. It’s considered a preventive benefit covered at no additional cost to the patient. So are routine screenings for cancer and other conditions.

For Medicare recipients, “Obamacare” also improved preventive care, and more importantly, closed a prescription drug coverage gap of several thousand dollars that was known as the “doughnut hole.”

Florida

FIU Becomes First Florida University to Launch CORE Emergency Management Partnership

Published

2 days ago

August 26, 2026

FNN NEWS

MIAMI, Fla. (FNN) — Florida officials announced the launch of the Coalition for Operational Readiness in Education, or CORE, Program at Florida International University, beginning an initiative designed to strengthen the state’s emergency management workforce through partnerships with colleges, universities and technical and trade schools.

The program will connect higher education institutions with the Florida Division of Emergency Management and other state agencies to provide students with specialized education and training in emergency management.

CORE is also expected to provide opportunities for students to earn industry-recognized certificates and establish pathways to jobs with emergency management offices and private-sector industry partners across Florida.

FIU First to Launch CORE

Florida International University in Miami is the first institution where CORE is being rolled out.

State officials said 11 institutions have committed to participating, with the long-term goal of expanding the initiative to every college, university, technical school and trade school in Florida.

The statewide expansion would create a pipeline of students trained for careers involving disaster preparedness, emergency response and recovery.

Building Florida’s Emergency Management Workforce

Florida’s exposure to hurricanes and other natural disasters has made emergency preparedness and response a major state priority.

Officials said maintaining Florida’s emergency management capabilities requires developing the next generation of professionals who will work before, during and after disasters and other emergencies.

The CORE partnerships are designed to connect classroom education with professional training, certifications and employment opportunities.

Education-to-Employment Pipeline

The program is intended to create a more direct pathway from education to careers in emergency management.

Through partnerships involving state agencies, educational institutions and industry organizations, students could gain specialized training while developing credentials recognized by employers.

The initiative could also help state and local emergency management agencies develop a larger pool of trained candidates as Florida’s population and emergency-response needs continue to grow.

Statewide Expansion Planned

While the program begins at FIU, officials said the broader objective is statewide.

The goal is to eventually establish CORE partnerships throughout Florida’s higher education and workforce-training system, including universities, colleges, technical schools and trade schools.

Florida officials also envision CORE becoming a workforce-development model that other states could replicate.

Key Takeaways

Program: Coalition for Operational Readiness in Education (CORE)
Initial launch: Florida International University in Miami
State partner: Florida Division of Emergency Management and other state agencies
Participating institutions: 11 institutions have committed so far
Training: Specialized emergency management education and workforce preparation
Credentials: Industry-recognized certificates
Career component: Pathways to emergency management agencies and industry employers
Long-term goal: Expand CORE to colleges, universities, technical schools and trade schools throughout Florida
National objective: Develop a Florida workforce model that could be replicated in other states

Florida

Byron Donalds Selects Miami-Dade Sen. Bryan Avila as Running Mate in Florida Governor’s Race

Published

3 days ago

August 25, 2026

FNN NEWS

MIAMI, Fla. (FNN) — Republican gubernatorial nominee Byron Donalds selected Florida state Sen. Bryan Avila of Miami-Dade County as his running mate for lieutenant governor, adding a South Florida lawmaker to the GOP ticket for the 2026 general election.

Donalds announced Avila as his choice Tuesday, Aug. 25, at Miami’s historic Freedom Tower, a location closely associated with South Florida’s Cuban exile community.

The selection puts Avila alongside Donalds as Republicans turn their attention to the general election and the race to succeed Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Who Is Bryan Avila?

Avila is a Republican state senator from Miami-Dade County and previously served in the Florida House of Representatives.

His selection gives the Donalds ticket a prominent South Florida presence and adds a lawmaker with experience in both chambers of the Florida Legislature.

The Miami announcement also places immigration, communism, economic opportunity and Florida’s relationship with Latin American communities near the center of the Republican ticket’s general-election messaging.

Road to the General Election

With Avila joining the ticket, Donalds now moves toward the November general election with the Republican nominees for governor and lieutenant governor in place.

The lieutenant governor selection is one of Donalds’ most consequential decisions since securing the Republican nomination, helping define the geographic, political and demographic strategy of his statewide campaign.

Florida

Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee Chair Christine Hunschofsky Faces Lawsuits, Election Complaints

Published

4 days ago

August 24, 2026

FNN NEWS

Who is next? Lawsuits and Florida election complaints put the incoming House Democratic leader’s oversight of political attacks, campaign spending and tactics against former Democratic lawmakers under scrutiny

ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — Incoming Florida House Democratic Leader Christine Hunschofsky, a former Parkland mayor is facing growing scrutiny over campaign tactics by the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, the party-affiliated committee she chairs, as former Democratic lawmakers challenge political attacks through lawsuits and Florida election complaints.

The disputes are placing increased scrutiny on Christine Hunschofsky, chair of the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, and Cassidy Whitaker, the committee’s caucus director for the 2026 election cycle.

The controversy goes beyond ordinary party infighting, with former Democratic lawmakers alleging that FHDCC used opposition research and campaign communications containing false or misleading information to attack members of its own party.

Those allegations raise questions about the committee’s research, approval process and campaign tactics — and whether House Democratic leaders can rebuild trust with lawmakers targeted by the same political organization they are expected to help lead.

Former Democratic lawmakers are now turning to the courts and Florida’s election complaint process to challenge FHDCC-linked campaign tactics, intensifying scrutiny of the committee’s leadership, spending, opposition research and oversight.

The lawsuits and complaints remain allegations. They do not establish that Hunschofsky, FHDCC or others violated the law.

But the controversy is no longer simply an internal Democratic campaign fight.

FHDCC Faces Real Legal Challenges

State Representative-Elect and former Democratic state Rep. James Bush III sued FHDCC and other defendants in Miami-Dade County over allegedly defamatory election communications.

Former Democratic state Rep. Daisy Morales has separately challenged campaign communications involving FHDCC through litigation in Orange County and Florida’s election complaint process.

The cases involve separate elections and allegations and must be decided on their individual evidence.

State Rep.-elect Daphne Campbell, a former state senator and former state representative, told Florida National News in a phone interview that she is considering filing a defamation lawsuit as well.

Together, however, they place FHDCC’s campaign practices under greater scrutiny and create a leadership test for Hunschofsky as she prepares to lead Florida House Democrats.

Hunschofsky’s Leadership Under Scrutiny

Hunschofsky’s position as chair does not automatically make her personally liable for every communication, expenditure or decision made by FHDCC.

But leadership brings accountability for how an organization operates.

Political attack campaigns require research, writing, production, vendors, financing and distribution. FHDCC’s internal structure determines how those activities are authorized and supervised.

That makes Hunschofsky’s authority, knowledge and oversight relevant as the committee responds to legal challenges involving its campaign activity.

The central issue is straightforward: What happened under the FHDCC banner, and what responsibility did its leadership have for it?.

Party Establishment vs. Voters’ Choice

The controversy also exposes a deeper tension between party leadership and voters who expect to choose representatives based on the priorities of their communities.

Political parties can recruit, endorse and financially support candidates.

Voters make the final choice.

Heavy intervention by a party organization in a Democratic primary can create the perception that party leaders are trying to make that choice for voters.

That can damage trust when voters believe local experience, constituent service and understanding of their community matter more than the preferences of party leadership.

Democrats Spending Money Fighting Democrats

The internal battles come as Florida Democrats face a larger electoral challenge.

Republicans hold substantial power in Tallahassee, while Democrats need financial resources to compete for legislative seats and statewide offices.

Money spent attacking Democrats in expensive Democratic primaries cannot simultaneously be spent challenging Republicans.

FHDCC has the right to participate in elections within the law. But intraparty battles followed by lawsuits and election complaints create a political question about whether those resources are advancing the committee’s broader mission of electing Democrats.

Minority Democrats and Party Trust

The disputes also involve former minority Democratic lawmakers.

Bush and Campbell are Black. Morales is Puerto Rican, Hispanic.

That does not establish racial or ethnic discrimination by Hunschofsky or FHDCC.

But former minority Democratic lawmakers turning to courts and election regulators over tactics associated with their own party creates a political challenge for Democrats, who depend heavily on Black and Hispanic voters.

Those voters have the same interest as every Florida voter in accurate campaign information, fair elections and political organizations that follow the rules.

A Political Standard That Should Apply to Both Parties

The controversy also creates an uncomfortable comparison for Democrats who have criticized President Donald Trump’s aggressive treatment of political opponents.

The lawsuits and election complaints do not establish that FHDCC copied Trump’s strategy or adopted a “Trump playbook.”

But they raise a broader question of consistency.

Democrats who demand accountability when Republicans exercise political power aggressively should be prepared to apply the same standards to organizations within their own party.

Republicans should do the same when allegations involve their side.

Fairness cannot depend on which party benefits.

From Political Fight to Legal Process

Negative campaigning and opposition research are legal and receive substantial First Amendment protection.

Political committees, however, remain subject to election laws, campaign-finance requirements and civil law.

A lawsuit does not prove defamation.

FHDCC’s separate argument that it cannot be sued.

An election complaint does not prove an election-law violation.

Neither automatically creates a criminal investigation.

If evidence ultimately supports potential criminal conduct, the appropriate law-enforcement agency or prosecutor — not political parties, candidates or news organizations — determines whether an investigation is warranted.

The principle protects everyone: allegations must be proven, due process must be respected and political influence should not shield proven violations.

Who Is Next?

The growing legal disputes leave FHDCC with a political problem extending beyond Bush, Morales and Campbell.

Who is next on the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee’s target list?

No Democrat is entitled to immunity from legitimate political criticism simply because that candidate belongs to the party.

But candidates should be able to expect political organizations to play by the rules.

The same principle applies to Republicans.

Political organizations can fight hard, expose legitimate weaknesses and spend money advocating for their candidates.

They still have to follow the law.

Hunschofsky Faces a Leadership Test

Hunschofsky is not watching the controversy from outside the organization.

She chairs the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee while preparing to lead Florida House Democrats, including minority Democratic lawmakers who were targeted by the committee’s campaign attacks.

The lawsuits and election complaints therefore put FHDCC’s governance, campaign strategy and financial oversight directly within the public debate surrounding her leadership.

The courts will determine the civil allegations before them. Election regulators will determine matters within their jurisdiction. If evidence independently supports potential criminal violations, law-enforcement authorities can determine whether an investigation is warranted.

For Hunschofsky, the leadership test is whether the committee she chairs can defend its campaign practices, account for its spending and maintain the trust of Democratic voters while the allegations move through Florida’s courts and election-enforcement system.

The lawsuits and election complaints remain allegations. They are not findings that Hunschofsky or FHDCC violated the law.

For Florida voters, the standard should be simple:

Play by the rules. Follow the evidence. Apply the law equally.

Florida National News is seeking comment from Hunschofsky and FHDCC regarding the lawsuits, election complaints, campaign spending and committee oversight. FNN will update this report with responses and significant developments.