Facebook Vice President David Marcus is the face of the company's Libra digital currency, but the original driving force was a 26-year-old female engineer named Morgan Beller.Technologyread more
After a year of flooding, Midwest farmers face a stifling heat wave that's spreading across the U.S.Agricultureread more
There is no end in sight to the Boeing 737 Max grounding after two fatal crashes, prompting airlines to rethink their growth plans.Airlinesread more
A quarter of the S&P 500 companies report earnings next week, and that could buffet the market as investors await the July Fed meeting.Market Insiderread more
Iran's Revolutionary Guard claims a British tanker it still holds, Stena Impero, failed to follow international maritime rules.World Newsread more
Moving lots of data to a public cloud over the internet can take months or years. CNBC got an inside look at how AWS transfers data to the cloud for its clients.Technologyread more
The president also said he "offered to personally vouch" for Rocky's bail. Sweden, however, does not have a bail system.Politicsread more
CoinShares Chief Strategy Officer Meltem Demirors discusses Facebook's Libra project and its impact on the cryptocurrency market after testifying to the House Financial...Fast Moneyread more
Some 40% of Americans would struggle to come up with even $400 to pay for an emergency expense. Just how are so many Americans so short on cash? Blame debt.Personal Financeread more
Amazon hires Trump-allied lobbyist Jeff Miller as battle for Pentagon contract heats up.Politicsread more
In a series of tweets, the president addressed an unusual controversy stemming from a speech delivered Thursday by New York Fed President John Williams.Marketsread more
Obamacare will get its day in court — again.
A federal appeals court in New Orleans will hear 90 minutes of oral arguments on Tuesday afternoon over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health-care legislation passed nearly a decade ago under President Barack Obama, in a case that could have sweeping ramifications for the nation's health system.
It's the latest in a long line of attempts to dismantle the law, known as Obamacare. To date, the legislative and legal attempts have been met with little success. Congress, despite two years of GOP control and a Republican president, has not repealed the law. And the Supreme Court has upheld its core provisions twice.
But Texas and a group of other Republican-led states have not given up.
Late last year, the states succeeded in getting a federal judge in Texas to strike down the law, though that ruling has not been implemented. And on Tuesday, defending that ruling, they will face off against Democratic-led states and the House of Representatives in arguments before a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Republican states are joined by the Trump administration. The Department of Justice, after first asking the court to only invalidate certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act, is now asking the court to do away with the measure in its entirety.
Experts say that if the Fifth Circuit invalidates Obamacare, there is virtually no telling what the immediate result would be. Though, if the court strikes down the law, the decision will almost certainly be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
"The whole health-care system would be in disarray," said Aviva Aron-Dine, the vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "It really would just throw things into chaos."
At stake is the health-care coverage of about 20 million people, protections for those with pre-existing conditions, and the expansion of Medicaid, which provides coverage to low-income adults.
The outcome could affect the presidential race. A decision could come by fall, potentially igniting new arguments over health care in the midst of the 2020 campaign. The median time between oral arguments and a ruling is about two months, according to Fifth Circuit data.
Democrats are already poised to make health care a central issue, and an adverse ruling could fuel the party's efforts. Democratic candidates referenced health care more than any other issue during the 2018 midterm races that saw the party seize control of Congress's lower chamber.
Republicans have vowed to replace Obamacare with health-care legislation of their own, but the party has not been able to form a consensus around any particular bill.
Legal experts say it's unlikely that the appeals court will strike down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety.
"Striking down a statute of this importance nine years after it was adopted and five years after it was fully implemented, one that reaches into every nook and cranny of the health-care system, would be completely unprecedented," said Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School who teaches administrative and health law.
Even some who advocate for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act doubt the merits of Texas's lawsuit.
"I would be more than astonished if this case led to the overturning of the ACA," said Michael Cannon, the director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute and the co-editor of a book titled "Replacing Obamacare."
The fundamental legal argument Texas is putting forward rests on the Supreme Court's rationale for upholding the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate provision in 2012. In that case, Chief Justice John Roberts reasoned that it was permissible for Congress to pass a law requiring those without insurance to pay a fee under the legislative body's taxing power.
Five years later, the GOP-dominated Congress reduced the individual mandate fee to $0, effectively eliminating it. That change means the law is no longer permissible as a tax, Texas and the Trump administration are arguing. Because the individual mandate is a core part of Obamacare, the whole 974-page law must go, they say.
Cannon said he is interested in whether the three judges even get to those questions — or if they appear likely to rule against the Republican states because they have not been harmed by a $0 penalty, and therefore don't have grounds, or standing, to sue.
"The plaintiffs claim that even though there is no penalty for not purchasing insurance, the law still injures them because the law contains the command: 'Thou shalt obtain health insurance,'" he said. "I think most observers, including ACA's supporters and many opponents, say that doesn't give you standing, you don't have standing because you feel compelled, there must be some concrete injury."
Bagley said that, ultimately, the case required Texas to win three separate legal arguments, each of which could be difficult.
"The legal argument that they've got standing is thin. The argument that the individual mandate is unconstitutional is groundless. And the claim that the remedy is to invalidate the entirety of the ACA is absurd," he said.