Amy Coney Barrett Sides With Liberal Justice During Supreme Court Hearing

Newsweek

22-04-2025

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to side with her liberal colleagues while hearing arguments in a case that will determine the future of no-cost preventive care under the Affordable Care Act.
Why It Matters
The case, Kennedy V. Braidwood challenges the legal authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (PSTF), created by the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. The task force recommends services insurers must cover at no-cost measures including cancer screenings and HIV prevention drugs like PrEP. But the conservative Christian employers in Texas who brought the case, argue that the 16 members of the task force, who are appointed by the HHS secretary, are unconstitutionally appointed.
The case will be consequential for the future of American health care. If the justices uphold a New Orleans-based fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2024, treatments that are now cost-free may become subject to payments.
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett testifies during the third day of her confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2020.
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett testifies during the third day of her confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2020.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Pool via AP
Coney Barrett, who was nominated by Trump in 2020, has emerged as a centrist judge in Supreme Court cases and has been criticized by Trump supporters for voting against her conservative colleagues in the past.
What To Know
The Court's three liberal members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson have all appeared to side with the task force while conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch appeared sympathetic to the challengers, with Thomas suggesting Congress had never designated authority to run the task force.
Conservative lawyer Jonathan Miller, who is representing the plaintiffs, argued that PSTF members are meant to be independent from political pressure. He said they could not simultaneously retain independence while being subject to supervision by the health secretary.
But Coney Barrett said Mitchell's interpretation of the word "independent" was "maximalist" and pointed to the doctrine of "constitutional avoidance" which argues that if a statute is open to interpretation, the Court should pick an interpretation that raises the least constitutional problems—i.e. the Court should not interpret the word "independent" in a way that renders the PSTF unconstitutional.
It is the latest in a string of decisions and comments by Coney Barrett which put her on a different path to her more conservative colleagues. In March, she expressed concerns about reviving the non delegation doctrine, as suggested by conservative judge Clarence Thomas. This doctrine, which hasn't been used since the 1930s, puts a cap on the amount of money federal agencies and other nonelected officials can raise through tax dollars. Coney Barrett said it would be ineffective and could weaken the power of government agencies.
In April, Coney Barrett joined liberals as the sole conservative in opposing the Court's majority decision to allow the administration to continue deporting alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
What People Are Saying
Matthew Mangino, a former district attorney in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania told Newsweek: "It may be a bit premature to suggest that Justice Amy Coney Barrett will vote against an attack on the Affordable Care Act, although her questions during oral argument seemed to imply her disagreement with former Trump lawyer Jonathan Mitchell's argument.
"Coney Barrett has shown her independence. She has voted against Trump on key issues including his hush money sentencing, presidential immunity and cancellations of USAID contracts. As a result, she is already experiencing the wrath of the MAGA movement."
Arthur Caplan, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, told NBC News: "This is a really crucial case. The price will be paid in dead bodies if the court rules against it."
Daniel Grabowski, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group supporting the plaintiffs told ABC News: "Americans have the constitutionally protected freedom to live and work according to their religious beliefs, and governments exist to defend that freedom. We urge the Supreme Court to restore this accountability within the federal government and to the American people."
Wayne Turner, a senior attorney at the National Health Law Program, a nonprofit group that advocates for low-income communities told ABC News: "The ACA's preventive services requirement has been a game changer, providing access to evidence-based preventive care and early detection of serious medical conditions. The ACA's coverage and cost-sharing protections are especially important for low-income persons, who will be harmed most if the Supreme Court refuses to allow the ACA provision to stand."
What Happens Next
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.