Author: Will Humble

In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (the Supreme Court’s resolution of Braidwood v. Becerra), the Court held 6-3 that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are “inferior officers” whose appointment by the HHS Secretary is consistent with the Appointments Clause.

As a result, the ACA’s requirement that private health plans (and Medicaid expansion plans) cover Task Force–recommended preventive services without cost sharing survived the challenge, essentially upholding the current system linking health insurance coverage to the Task Force recommendations.

The plaintiffs (Braidwood) wanted to eliminate all of the Task Force recommendations developed since 2010 (when the ACA was signed). 

Note: The Task Force recommendations that were in place when President Obama signed the ACA remain hard wired and can’t be eliminated by new Task Force recommendations.

A and B Recommendations | United States Preventive Services Taskforce

The post ACA implementation recommendations that Braidwood wanted to get rid of include:

• Colorectal cancer screenings for adults ages 45–49
• Depression screenings for adolescents
• HIV prevention medications, including PrEP

This outcome is an important short-term victory for preventive health, ensuring that millions of Americans continue to have access to evidence-based care that saves lives and reduces long-term health costs.

I say short-term because the Court also said Kennedy has the authority to remove USPSTF members at will. As he did with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Kennedy is likely to replace Task Force members with his friends in the alt-science community. That new task force could nix the recommendations made by the TF since 2010..

See the ruling: Kennedy v Braidwood

For now, these protections stand, and health plans still need to cover US Preventative Health Services Task Force category A & B recommendations –  but Kennedy can fire the task force at will and replace them with whoever he sees fit (without senate confirmation) and could direct them to target and eliminate the recommendations that have been put in place since 2010 – gradually (or even quickly) eroding access to critical preventive services.

Read more from ASTHO’s Public Health Litigation Round-Up and AzPHA’s background post here.

Related: U.S. Supreme Court Could Roll Back, Freeze or Eliminate Preventive Health Coverage – Oral Arguments Tomorrow (4/21/25) – AZ Public Health Association

New Threat to Public Health: Preventive Care on the Chopping Block – AZ Public Health Association

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.