logo
Kavanaugh and Barrett appear likely to ride to Obamacare's rescue

Kavanaugh and Barrett appear likely to ride to Obamacare's rescue

Vox21-04-2025

is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could lead health insurance plans to offer narrower coverage. The case, known as Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, challenges the authority of a group within the US Department of Health and Human Services tasked with requiring insurers to cover some forms of preventative care.
This body, known as the US Preventive Services Task Force (PSTF), has exercised its authority to mandate coverage of a wide range of treatments — from cancer screenings, to drugs that prevent transmission of the HIV virus, to eye ointments that prevent infections that cause blindness in infants. Notably, the PSTF was given this power by the Affordable Care Act, the landmark legislation signed by President Barack Obama, which Republican litigants frequently ask the courts to undermine.
SCOTUS, Explained
Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The plaintiffs, represented by former Donald Trump lawyer Jonathan Mitchell, want the justices to strip the PSTF of this authority — thus permitting health plans to deny coverage for treatments they are currently required to pay for.
Based on Monday's argument, it does not appear likely that Mitchell has the votes for that outcome. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito came out swinging against the PSTF, and Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared likely to join them in attempting to sabotage Obamacare. But they were the only three justices who clearly telegraphed sympathy to Mitchell's arguments.
Notably, Republican Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett both seemed inclined to vote against Mitchell, although their questions did leave some uncertainty about how they would ultimately rule in this case. All three of the Court's Democrats appeared all but certain to uphold the PSTF, so that means there may be at least five votes to preserve health insurers' obligations under Obamacare.
What is the legal issue in Braidwood Management?
This case turns on a somewhat arcane issue involving the government's hiring and firing practices. The Constitution says that certain officials — under the Supreme Court's precedents, officials who wield significant authority — are 'officers of the United States.' Officers that answer only to the president and who make final decisions on behalf of the government are considered 'principal officers,' and must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Meanwhile, lesser-ranking officials known as 'inferior officers' may be appointed by an agency leader such as a Cabinet secretary.
Members of the PSTF were appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so they do not qualify as principal officers. So the question in this case is whether they are validly classified as inferior officers. To qualify as such an official, their work must be supervised by a principal officer confirmed by the Senate. As the Supreme Court said in Edmond v. United States (1997), ''inferior officers' are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.'
The government's argument that PSTF members count as inferior officers is pretty straightforward. Every judge who has looked at this case so far has concluded that the health secretary may remove PSTF members at will. A statute permits the secretary to delay implementation of the PSTF's recommendations indefinitely. And the PSTF is part of the Public Health Service, which by statute is controlled by the assistant secretary for health (who is also a Senate-confirmed official), and by the secretary himself.
Mitchell, meanwhile, primarily relies on a provision of federal law which states that PSTF members 'shall be independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure.' Task force members, he claims, cannot simultaneously be 'independent' and also subject to secretarial supervision.
But most of the justices appeared skeptical of Mitchell's reading of the word 'independent.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that she sometimes asks her law clerks for their 'independent judgment' regarding a legal question she needs to decide, but that does not mean that she has to take the law clerk's recommendation, or that she can't fire the clerk.
Significantly, Barrett — who repeatedly described Mitchell's interpretation of the word 'independent' as 'maximalist' — seemed persuaded by Sotomayor's argument. As Barrett said at one point during the argument, she sometimes asks her law clerks to provide recommendations that are 'independent' of outside influence, but not 'independent' of Barrett's own approach to how cases should be decided.
Even more significantly, Barrett pointed to the doctrine of 'constitutional avoidance,' which says that if there are multiple ways of construing a statute, courts should avoid reading it in ways that raise constitutional problems. Thus, if the word 'independent' can be read in more than one way, the Court should pick an interpretation that doesn't render the PSTF unconstitutional.
Kavanaugh, meanwhile, asked some questions that suggest he might be sympathetic to Mitchell's approach; early in the argument, for example, he told Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan that he thought the government's interpretation of the word 'independent' was 'odd.' But he seemed to shift gears once Mitchell took the podium.
Among other things, Kavanaugh noted that his Court is normally reluctant to read the law to create federal bodies that are independent of the government's normal organizational chart, where agency leaders answer to the president and nearly everyone else answers to an agency leader. Indeed, the Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could eliminate Congress's ability to create such independent agencies. So Kavanaugh appeared to believe that this statute should not be construed to make the PSTF independent from the secretary if it is possible to read it in another way.
Related A major Trump power grab just reached the Supreme Court
Again, Kavanaugh and Barrett did hedge enough in their questions that it is not entirely clear how they will vote in this case. And Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican who also sometimes breaks with the Court's right flank, was silent for most of the argument. So it is not at all clear where Roberts will come down in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management.
Still, based on Monday's argument, it appears possible, perhaps even likely, that the PSTF will survive.
The Court may send this back down to the lower court
Gorsuch, at one point, floated an alternative way of resolving this case. While every judge who has heard the case so far agreed that the secretary has the power to appoint and remove task force members, there's no statute which directly states that he can do so. Instead, that power is likely implicit in other provisions of law, such as the provision giving the secretary control over the Public Health Service.
Gorsuch suggested that the Court may send the case back down to the lower court to decide whether the secretary actually has the power to appoint and remove task force members. And Barrett, at one point, also signaled that she is open to sending the case back down in a procedure known as a 'remand.'
If that happens, that would be bad news for the PSTF in the short term, because the case was previously heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the most right-wing court in the federal appellate system, and one, based on its past behavior, that is likely to be hostile to any statute associated with a Democratic president.
Still, even if the case is sent back down to the Fifth Circuit, and even if the Fifth Circuit does read federal law to undercut the PSTF, the Supreme Court can still review that decision once it is handed down. So a remand does not necessarily mean that health insurers will gain the power to deny coverage for cancer screenings or anti-HIV medication.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The ACLU demands the US release and return a Dominican woman living legally in Puerto Rico

time17 minutes ago

The ACLU demands the US release and return a Dominican woman living legally in Puerto Rico

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- In late May, a 47-year-old woman from the Dominican Republic was detained by police in Puerto Rico after she entered a municipal building seeking a permit to sell ice cream on the beach to support herself. Upon being turned over to federal agents, the Dominican woman presented her passport, driver's license and work permits that proved she was living in the U.S. territory legally, her attorney Ángel Robles and the American Civil Liberties Union of Puerto Rico, said Monday. Despite the documents presented, authorities recently transferred her to Texas as part of a federal crackdown on migrants living illegally in U.S. jurisdictions. The woman, whose first name is Aracelis, has not been fully identified because she is a victim of domestic violence. Aracelis is among hundreds of people who have been detained in Puerto Rico since large-scale arrests began in late January, surprising many in the U.S. territory that has long welcomed migrants. Robles and the ACLU demanded Aracelis' release and return to Puerto Rico. 'It's outrageous,' Robles said in a phone interview. 'No charges have been filed against her, and she is not in the system.' Because her name does not appear in a federal database, Robles' request for a bond hearing was denied. 'This case is one of unspeakable abuse,' said Annette Martínez Orabona, the ACLU director in Puerto Rico. The case has fueled already simmering anger against the administration of Puerto Rico Gov. Jenniffer González Colón and local authorities who have been working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to arrest those believed to be living illegally in the U.S. territory. In a letter sent Monday to the governor and the island's justice secretary, the ACLU accused Puerto Rico's government of violating the Constitution and local laws by providing ICE and U.S. Homeland Security with confidential information on nearly 6,000 immigrants. It also accused ICE of using that data to go on a 'fishing expedition' that it called 'arbitrary and abusive.' A spokesman for Homeland Security Investigations did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In Puerto Rico, undocumented immigrants are allowed to open bank accounts and obtain a special driver's license. The ACLU in Puerto Rico also accused González Colón's administration of not providing protocols to local government agencies for how to deal with such requests from the federal government. The ACLU requested, among other things, that Puerto Rico's government issue an executive order barring public agencies from collaborating with ICE subpoenas not accompanied by a court order. A spokeswoman for the governor did not immediately return a message for comment.

In their own words: Trump, Newsom trade insults and barbs over National Guard in Los Angeles

time19 minutes ago

In their own words: Trump, Newsom trade insults and barbs over National Guard in Los Angeles

The swiftly evolving situation in the Los Angeles area over protests surrounding immigration enforcement actions has also cued up a public spat between President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California governor who has been one of the Republican president's most vocal Democratic critics. After Trump on Sunday called up 2,000 National Guard troops to respond, Newsom said he would sue the administration, a promise on which the state followed through a day later. Trump cited a legal provision that allows him to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." The president also agreed with one of his top advisers that maybe the governor should be arrested. Here's a look at back-and-forth between Trump and Newsom in their own words: 'You have violent people, and we're not gonna let them get away with it.' — Trump, Sunday, in remarks to reporters in Morristown, New Jersey. ___ Newsom's ire has been elevated over Trump's decision to, without his support, call up the California National Guard for deployment into his state. In a letter Sunday, Newsom called on Trump to rescind the Guard deployment, calling it a 'serious breach of state sovereignty.' The governor, who was in Los Angeles meeting with local law enforcement and other officials, also told protesters they were playing into Trump's plans and would face arrest for violence or property destruction. 'Trump wants chaos and he's instigated violence,' he said. 'Stay peaceful. Stay focused. Don't give him the excuse he's looking for.' In an interview with MSNBC, Newsom said Sunday he had spoken with Trump 'late Friday night,' after the protests had begun, but said deploying the National Guard 'never came up.' "We talked for almost 20 minutes, and he — barely, this issue never came up. I mean, I kept trying to talk about LA, he wanted to talk about all these other issues," Newsom said. 'We had a very decent conversation.' 'He never once brought up the National Guard,' Newsom said of Trump, calling him 'a stone-cold liar.' Saying, 'I did call him the other night,' Trump told reporters Sunday that he told Newsom in that call: ''Look you've got to take care of this. Otherwise I'm sending in the troops.' ... That's what we did.' On Monday, Trump posted on social media that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without his intervention and referred to Newsom as 'Newscum,' a pejorative moniker he has used to refer to the governor. 'We are suing Donald Trump. This is a manufactured crisis. He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' — Newsom, Monday, X post. ___ As Newsom promised, California officials sued the Trump administration on Monday, with the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, arguing that the deployment of troops 'trampled' on the state's sovereignty and pushing for a restraining order. The initial deployment of 300 National Guard troops was expected to quickly expand to the full 2,000 that were authorized by Trump. Late Monday, Trump authorized an additional 2,000 National Guard troops. Ahead of that move, Newsom accused the president of inflaming tensions, breaching state sovereignty and wasting resources, while warning protesters not to 'take Trump's bait.' Teasing the suit, Newsom told MSNBC that he saw the deployment as 'an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act.' Asked Monday about the lawsuit, Trump said it was 'interesting' and argued 'that place would be burning down' without the federal government's intervention. 'I'm very happy I got involved," Trump added. "I think Gavin in his own way is very happy I got involved.' 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing." — Trump, Monday, in remarks to reporters. ___ Tom Homan, the Trump administration's border czar, previously warned that anyone, including public officials, would be arrested if they obstructed federal immigration enforcement. Newsom's initial response to Homan, during the MSNBC interview and in subsequent posts on his own social media: 'Come and get me, tough guy.' On Monday Trump seemed to agree with his border chief, telling reporters, 'I would do it if I were Tom.' 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing,' Trump added. "He's done a terrible job. Look — I like Gavin, he's a nice guy, but he's grossly incompetent, everybody knows." Homan later said there was 'no discussion' about actually arresting Newsom, but reiterated that 'no one's above the law.' wrote Monday on X that they represented 'a day I hoped I would never see in America' and said Trump's call for his arrest marked 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.'

New York lawmakers approve bill that would allow medically assisted suicide for the terminally ill

timean hour ago

New York lawmakers approve bill that would allow medically assisted suicide for the terminally ill

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Terminally ill New Yorkers would have the legal ability to end their own lives with pharmaceutical drugs under a bill passed Monday in the state Legislature. The proposal, which now moves to the governor's office, would allow a person with an incurable illness to be prescribed life-ending drugs if he or she requests the medication and gets approval from two physicians. A spokesperson for New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said she would review the legislation. The New York Senate gave final approval to the bill Monday night after hours of debate during which supporters said it would let terminally ill people die on their own terms. 'It's not about hastening death, but ending suffering,' said state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Democrat who sponsored the proposal. Opponents have argued the state should instead improve end-of-life medical care or have objected on religious grounds. 'We should not be in the business of state-authorized suicide,' said state Sen. George Borrello, a Republican. The state Assembly passed the measure in late April. The proposal requires that a terminally ill person who is expected to die within six month make a written request for the drugs. Two witnesses would have sign the request to ensure that the patient is not being coerced. The request would then have to be approved by the person's attending physician as well as a consulting physician. The legislation was first introduced in 2016, Hoylman-Sigal said, though it has stalled year after year in the New York statehouse. Dennis Poust, executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, which has opposed the measure, said 'This is a dark day for New York State." Eleven other states and Washington, D.C., have laws allowing medically assisted suicide, according to Compassion & Choices, an advocacy organization that backs the policy. Corinne Carey, the group's local campaign director, said lawmakers had 'recognized how important it is to give terminally ill New Yorkers the autonomy they deserve over their own end-of-life experiences.' 'The option of medical aid in dying provides comfort, allowing those who are dying to live their time more fully and peacefully until the end,' said Carey.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store