One of the most important parts of the U.S. Constitution is its system of checks and balances. This system makes sure that no one branch of government—Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court—has too much power.
The Supreme Court plays a critical role by interpreting the law and protecting people’s rights, especially when politics get extreme (like now). In times like these, when big public health challenges are hitting the nation (some of the challenges self-imposed by Secretary Kennedy and the president)… an independent US Supreme Court plays an even more important role than usual.
Did the Court exercise that independence from the executive branch this session? The answer is yes and no. This year’s decisions were a mixed bag for public health.
Some hoped SCOTUS would bring clarity and a cool head. Instead, it delivered a mix of confusing and sometimes conflicting rulings.
The Court said states can block minors with gender dysphoria from getting doctor-prescribed treatments. It also weakened workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and stopped patients from suing states that refuse to work with health providers who also perform abortions.
Rural hospitals also lost their case for better Medicare payments to cover care for low-income patients.
Still, it wasn’t all bad. In Kennedy v. Braidwood, the Court upheld the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [more on this in the next blog] keeping (for now) key preventive services like colorectal cancer screenings for adults 45–49, depression screenings for teens, and HIV prevention medications like PrEP. But as we’ll see in the next blog – that relief is likely temporary as Kennedy still has plenty of time to dismantle the Task Force.
The Court also backed federal powers to regulate vaping products that attract kids and “ghost guns” that can’t be traced. And it made it easier for people to challenge federal benefit denials and for students with disabilities to seek protection.
Big thanks to AzPHA member James Hodge, JD, for breaking down these important cases in his article in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Read more here.
