In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court has upheld the authority of the US Preventive Services Task Force, securing a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) concerning preventive care. The ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management asserts that members of the task force were appointed in accordance with Article II of the Constitution, maintaining the preventive care mandates without requiring Presidential or Senate involvement in their appointment.
This decision follows a legal challenge by several Christian-owned businesses, which objected to the preventive care mandates on religious grounds. Specifically, they criticized the inclusion of PrEP, a medication for HIV prevention, in the range of services offered without cost-sharing. These businesses argued that the task force was an unconstitutional body because its members were improperly appointed, an allegation initially backed by the Fifth Circuit court. Their original lawsuit suggested that the drugs promoted behaviors inconsistent with their beliefs, such as homosexual activity and drug use. The details of the case and the plaintiffs’ arguments were shared on CBS News and KFF.
According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the task force members qualify as ‘inferior officers’ since their appointments are made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), a principal officer, which aligns with constitutional mandates. The task force’s foundation dates back to 1984 under the HHS and became part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality after the Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999. The ACA, implemented in 2010, mandated health insurance plans to cover preventive services rated highly by the task force without cost-sharing, effectively embedding the task force’s recommendations into law.
The majority opinion, penned by Justice John Kavanaugh, clarified the distinction between principal and inferior officers, referencing Edmond v. United States. He emphasized that inferior officers operate under supervision by principal officers, which in this case includes the Secretary of HHS, who possesses the authority to override task force recommendations.
However, dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the HRQA only authorized the Secretary of HHS to “convene,” but not “appoint,” task force members, suggesting potential misinterpretation in the courts regarding the force’s constitutional setup. These discussions were reported in an article titled “US Supreme Court upholds HHS task force, preserving ACA preventive care provision” that first appeared on JURIST.