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

Vilchez Santiago Wins Union Backing; Daisy Morales Says Voters — Not Political Endorsements — Decide Elections

Published

3 days ago

July 10, 2026

FNN NEWS

ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN NEWS) — The Democratic primary for Florida House District 43 intensified this week after candidate Samuel Vilchez Santiago announced endorsements from a coalition of labor organizations, prompting former State Rep. Daisy Morales to respond that while endorsements are important, elections are ultimately decided by voters.

Vilchez Santiago announced support from 12 labor organizations, including the Florida AFL-CIO, Central Florida AFL-CIO, SEIU Florida, the Florida Education Association, the Orange County Fire Fighters Association, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1625, the Orange County Classroom Teachers Association, the United Auto Workers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 606, the Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 517, SMART Transportation Division PAC, and the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1596.

“I am incredibly honored to earn the support of these outstanding labor organizations,” Vilchez Santiago said.

He said the endorsements were especially meaningful because he grew up in a union household.

“These endorsements are deeply personal to me. As someone who grew up in a union household, I understand firsthand that unions create pathways into the middle class and give working families the opportunity to build a better future.”

Vilchez Santiago said he would continue advocating for workers’ rights and policies that strengthen Florida’s middle class if elected.

Morales Congratulates Opponent, Recognizes Union Members

In response, Morales congratulated Vilchez Santiago on receiving the endorsements while recognizing the contributions of organized labor across Florida.

“I congratulate Mr. Vilchez Santiago on earning the support of these organizations and appreciate every group that participates in our democratic process,” Morales said.

Morales praised union members working as teachers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, healthcare professionals, skilled trades workers, transportation employees and others who contribute to Florida’s economy.

“Every worker deserves respect, opportunity, safe workplaces, fair wages, and the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.”

Morales Points to 2020 Democratic Primary

Morales said endorsements are valued but do not determine election outcomes.

She cited the 2020 Democratic Primary for Florida House District 48, when Vilchez Santiago received endorsements from elected officials, political organizations and advocacy groups before Morales defeated him and three other Democratic candidates to win the Democratic nomination.

Following that election, Florida Politics wrote that endorsements “didn’t matter” after Morales emerged victorious.

“That election demonstrated a principle that remains true today,” Morales said. “Political endorsements are valued expressions of support, but they never replace the judgment of the voters. The people—not political insiders or special interests—have the final say on Election Day.”

Morales later won the general election and represented House District 48 from 2020 to 2022.

Contrasting Campaign Messages

The exchange highlights the different messages each campaign is emphasizing as the Aug. 18 Democratic primary approaches.

Vilchez Santiago has focused on labor support, workers’ rights, affordability, housing, healthcare and reducing the influence of special interests.

Morales has centered her campaign on her legislative experience, bipartisan record and accomplishments during her term in the Florida House.

Morales said her official legislative record includes sponsoring and co-sponsoring more than 110 bills during the 2021 and 2022 legislative sessions and helping secure more than $12.5 million in state appropriations supporting higher education, healthcare, workforce development, nonprofit organizations, infrastructure improvements and community projects.

Among the legislative priorities Morales highlighted were educational opportunities for disabled veterans, property tax relief, consumer protection, public safety, workforce development, healthcare initiatives, infrastructure investments and services benefiting veterans, seniors and individuals with disabilities.

“Working families deserve representatives who deliver results—not just campaign promises,” Morales said.

Leadership and Experience

Morales said voters should evaluate candidates based on their accomplishments in public office.

“There is a clear difference in this race. My opponent is asking voters to consider who has endorsed his campaign. I am asking voters to examine my record of public service, legislative accomplishments, and proven results. Experience matters because results matter.”

She encouraged voters to review her official legislative record on the Florida House of Representatives website, which includes sponsored and co-sponsored legislation, committee assignments, voting history and appropriations.

Primary Election Approaches

The Democratic primary for Florida House District 43 will be held on Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2026, with early voting scheduled for Aug. 3–16. The winner will advance to the Nov. 3 general election.

House District 43 includes portions of east Orange County, including Azalea Park, Union Park, Alafaya, Orlando, Rio Pinar and surrounding communities.

Both campaigns are expected to continue emphasizing their respective strengths as voters begin casting ballots in one of Central Florida’s most closely watched Democratic legislative primaries.

Central Florida News

Orlando Begins Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Review, Addresses Property Tax Reform and Future Spending

Published

3 days ago

July 10, 2026

FNN NEWS

ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN NEWS) — The City of Orlando will officially begin its Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget process on Monday, July 13, with a public budget workshop outlining Mayor Buddy Dyer’s proposed spending plan for the coming fiscal year.

City officials said the proposed budget is balanced, does not increase the city’s millage rate, and continues to prioritize the core municipal services residents rely on every day.

Budget Workshop Scheduled for July 13

The budget process begins with a workshop at 10 a.m. in the City Council Chambers on the second floor of Orlando City Hall.

During the workshop, Mayor Buddy Dyer and members of the Orlando City Council will receive an overview of the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget from Chief Financial Officer Jose Fernandez and Assistant Chief Financial Officer Jason Wojkiewicz.

In addition to presenting the proposed spending plan, city financial officials will discuss proposed property tax reform and its potential impact on future city budgets and long-term financial planning.

Public Hearings Scheduled for September

Following the budget workshop, Orlando residents will have opportunities to provide public input during two public hearings in September.

Budget Hearing No. 1

Monday, Sept. 14, 2026
5:01 p.m.
City Council Chambers, Orlando City Hall

During the first hearing, the City Council is expected to adopt a proposed millage rate and establish a tentative Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget and Capital Improvement Program.

Budget Hearing No. 2

Monday, Sept. 28, 2026
5:01 p.m.
City Council Chambers, Orlando City Hall

The second and final public hearing will include the City Council’s vote to adopt the final millage rate, Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget and Capital Improvement Program.

Budget Takes Effect Oct. 1

If approved, Orlando’s Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget will take effect on Thursday, Oct. 1, 2026, marking the beginning of the city’s new fiscal year.

FY 2026-27 Budget Timeline

Monday, July 13 — Budget Workshop (10 a.m.)
Monday, Sept. 14 — First Public Budget Hearing (5:01 p.m.)
Monday, Sept. 28 — Final Public Budget Hearing and Adoption Vote (5:01 p.m.)
Thursday, Oct. 1 — Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Implementation

The annual budget process establishes funding priorities for city operations, public safety, transportation, parks, infrastructure, capital improvements and other municipal services while determining the city’s property tax rate for the upcoming fiscal year.

Politics

State Rep. Angie Nixon Condemns Deadly ICE Shooting, Calls for Independent Investigation

Published

3 days ago

July 10, 2026

FNN NEWS

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (FNN NEWS) — Following the fatal shooting of 52-year-old father and construction worker Lorenzo Salgado Araujo by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Houston, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate and Florida State Representative Angie Nixon released the following statement:

Statement from Rep. Angie Nixon

“Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was a father who spent decades building homes and providing for his family. He was fatally shot in the street by an ICE agent operating from an unmarked vehicle. My heart breaks for his wife and three sons.

“Our nation faces a moral choice. We must stop investing billions of taxpayer dollars in an agency that, in my view, terrorizes communities, operates with too little accountability, and often conducts enforcement actions without body cameras or clear identification. Those resources should instead be invested in strengthening our communities and helping families meet their basic needs. I believe ICE should be abolished.

“I stand in full solidarity with Lorenzo’s family in calling for a fully independent and transparent investigation into his death. I also call for the immediate release of his brother and the other individuals who were detained during this incident if they are being held without legal justification.”

Key Points

Rep. Angie Nixon expressed condolences to the family of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo.
She called for a fully independent and transparent investigation into the fatal shooting.
Nixon criticized ICE’s enforcement practices and renewed her call to abolish the agency.
She urged the release of Lorenzo’s brother and others detained during the incident if their continued detention is not legally justified.