By Karah Rucker (Anchor/Reporter), Zachary Hill (Video Editor)
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could impact the future of certain “free preventive healthcare services” under the Affordable Care Act. At the heart of the case is the constitutionality of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends more than 100 preventive services that insurers and group health plans must cover at no cost to patients.
The case was triggered by a legal challenge to the task force’s recommendation that a medication to reduce the risk of contracting HIV be fully covered for recipients of former President Barack Obama’s signature health care law. America First Legal, on behalf of four individuals and two small businesses, filed a lawsuit in Texas. They argue they should not be forced to provide full insurance coverage for services like HIV prevention medication. They cite “religious and procedural” objections.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
America First Legal also contends that the task force members who make decisions on such matters are unconstitutional. They say it is because they were not nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate, as required for “principal” officers under the Constitution.
In 2023, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that task force members are, in fact, principal officers who should have undergone the nomination and confirmation process.
The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court. They argue the decision “threatens healthcare protections for millions of Americans that have been in place for 14 years.”
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the individuals and businesses who sued, it could eliminate the requirement for insurers to cover the full cost of services such as birth control, vaccines and mental health screenings.
The challengers are now seeking to reintroduce some of the arguments that the 5th Circuit rejected in their appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a petition filed in September, the Justice Department argued that the task force’s decade of coverage recommendations are legal and should be upheld. They warn that a rollback would jeopardize healthcare protections for millions of Americans.
The timing of the Supreme Court’s action, coupled with President-elect Donald Trump’s November victory, raises questions about whether his incoming administration will support the Biden administration’s position or opt not to defend the panels that set coverage requirements under the ACA, which Trump has criticized. If Trump’s Justice Department does not defend the task force, the high court may appoint a different lawyer to do so.
Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
The case is likely to be heard in March or April. While awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision, both the federal government and the challengers have been operating under a compromise. “Obamacare’s” insurance requirements remain in place nationwide, but the government cannot enforce them against the plaintiffs in the Texas case.
Related Stories
THE SUPREME COURT HAS AGREED TO HEAR A CASE THAT COULD DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF CERTAIN “FREE PREVENTIVE HEALTHCARE SERVICES” UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
AT THE CENTER OF THE CASE IS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE U.S. PREVENTIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE –
WHICH RECOMMENDS OVER 100 PREVENTIVE SERVICES THAT INSURERS AND GROUP HEALTH PLANS **MUST COVER WITH NO COST FOR PATIENTS.
THE CASE WAS SPARKED BY A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE TASK FORCE’S RECOMMENDATION A MEDICATION BE COVERED IN FULL FOR OBAMA CARE RECIPIENTS THAT REDUCES THE RISK OF CONTRACTING HIV.
FOUR INDIVIDUALS AND TWO SMALL BUSINESSES FILED A LAWSUIT SAYING THEY CAN’T BE FORCED TO PROVIDE FULL INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THINGS LIKE MEDICATION TO PREVENT HIV – CITING “RELIGIOUS AND PROCEDURAL” OBJECTIONS.
THEY ARGUED THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS IN CHARGE OF DECISIONS LIKE THIS ONE –
ARE **UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT OR CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE, AS REQUIRED FOR “PRINCIPAL” OFFICERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
IN 2023, THE 5TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS ARE, IN FACT, PRINCIPAL OFFICERS WHO **SHOULD HAVE UNDERGONE THE NOMINATION AND CONFIRMATION PROCESS.
THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION – APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT –
SAYING THE DECISION “THREATENS HEALTH CARE PROTECTIONS FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR 14 YEARS.”
THE BENCH WILL TAKE UP THE CASE THIS SPRING WITH A RULING EXPECTED NEXT YEAR.
IF THE SUPREME COURT OFFERS A MORE BROAD RULING IN FAVOR OF THE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES WHO SUED –
IT COULD REMOVE REQUIREMENTS THAT INSURERS COVER THE FULL COST OF THINGS LIKE BIRTH CONTROL, VACCINES, OR MENTAL HEALTH SCREENINGS.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE –
YOU CAN READ OUR NEWS ARTICLE BY DOWNLOADING THE STRAIGHT ARROW NEWS MOBILE APP OR VISIT US ONLINE AT SAN DOT COM.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
Certified Balanced Award by AllSides | Balanced Bias Rating by Ad Fontes Media | 100/100 Reliability Rating by NewsGuard
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy | Cookie Settings
© 2025 Straight Arrow News, LLC
Unbiased. Straight Facts.™
Right at your fingertips.
Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.
Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
