606 U.S. 748 (2025) · 2025
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.
health careAffordable Care Actpreventive careAppointments Clauseexecutive poweradministrative lawLandmark
Summary
Braidwood Management challenged the Affordable Care Act's preventive-services coverage rules by attacking the appointment structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The Supreme Court held that Task Force members are inferior officers, not principal officers, because they are supervised by the HHS Secretary. The Secretary can remove them at will and review their recommendations before they become binding. The decision reversed the Fifth Circuit and left in place the appointment structure that supports many no-cost preventive-care requirements.
Background & Context
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issues evidence-based recommendations about preventive health services. Since the Affordable Care Act, many of its A and B recommendations have triggered no-cost coverage requirements for most private health plans. Braidwood Management and other plaintiffs objected to those requirements and argued that Task Force members were principal officers who could not be appointed by the HHS Secretary alone. The Supreme Court resolved the Appointments Clause issue, not the policy wisdom of the preventive-care mandate.
The Question Before the Court
Are members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force principal officers who must be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, or inferior officers who may be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Appointments Clause?
Petitioner
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- Task Force members are inferior officers.
- The Secretary has appointment authority.
- The preventive-services system should not be invalidated on this Appointments Clause theory.
Respondent
Braidwood Management, Inc., et al.
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- Task Force members exercise binding federal power.
- They are principal officers, not inferior officers.
- Appointment by the Secretary is not enough.
The Holding
Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are inferior officers whose appointment by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is consistent with the Appointments Clause. The Secretary can remove Task Force members at will and review or block recommendations before they take effect.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
6-3
Vote
Joined decision
6 justicesAC
Amy Barrett
Majority
BK
Brett Kavanaugh
Majority
EK
Elena Kagan
Majority
JR
John Roberts
Majority
KB
Ketanji Jackson
Majority
SS
Sonia Sotomayor
Majority
Dissented
3 justicesCT
Clarence Thomas
Dissent
NG
Neil Gorsuch
Dissent
SA
Samuel Alito
Dissent
What this means for you
The ruling preserved the federal structure that supports no-cost coverage for many preventive services, including screenings and other evidence-based preventive care recommended by the Task Force. It does not decide every dispute over the ACA's preventive-services mandate, and future litigation can still challenge particular rules or agency actions. But it removes the Appointments Clause theory that threatened to unsettle a major part of preventive-care coverage nationwide.
Key Takeaways
- The Court held that Preventive Services Task Force members are inferior officers under Article II.
- The HHS Secretary's at-will removal power was central to the Court's reasoning.
- The Court also found that the Secretary can review or block Task Force recommendations before they become binding.
- The decision reversed the Fifth Circuit's Appointments Clause ruling.
- The practical effect is to protect the legal foundation for many ACA no-cost preventive-care coverage requirements.
Decision
6-3 majority opinion
- Citation
- 606 U.S. 748 (2025)
- Vote
- 6-3
- Decision type
- Majority opinion
- Argued
- April 21, 2025
- Decided
- June 27, 2025
- Term
- 2024
- Opinion author
- Brett Kavanaugh
Justice Kavanaugh wrote the Court's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch.