In a recent development arising from the Supreme Court’s scrutiny of a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) task force, the justices have requested additional briefs addressing the power of the HHS secretary to appoint members. This request follows oral arguments, reflecting the Court’s ongoing interest in the procedural aspects of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is instrumental in setting healthcare coverage standards under the Affordable Care Act.
The case originates from a challenge made by individuals and small businesses in Texas, who objected to the mandated insurance coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medications. They argue that such medications promote behaviors contrary to their religious beliefs and question the task force’s constitutionality due to its members not being appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate. Lower courts supported their stance, leading the Supreme Court to take up the matter.
During oral arguments, justices, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, expressed skepticism about the HHS secretary’s appointment powers. The Supreme Court’s order for new briefs aims to clarify whether there is sufficient control by the HHS secretary over task force members, which might exempt them from Senate confirmation. Notably, the government argues that the ability of the HHS secretary to remove task force members indicates adequate oversight.
The Supreme Court further instructed both parties to deliberate on precedents set by two historical cases, United States v. Hartwell (1868) and United States v. Smith (1888), which involve the classification of government officials as “officers of the United States.” These references might provide context regarding the expectations for federal appointments.
The Court has stipulated a deadline of May 5 for the submission of these new briefs, reflecting the urgency and significance of this procedural inquiry (PDF order).