Supreme Court Agrees to Review Constitutionality of Obamacare Mandate Panel

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) building is seen in Washington, on July 22, 2019. Alastair Pike/AFP via Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Jan. 10 to review the constitutionality of an Affordable Care Act provision that allows a panel to mandate that insurers cover preventive medical services without cost to patients.

The new decision was issued as an unsigned order in Becerra v. Braidwood Management Inc. No justices dissented. The court did not explain its decision. The case has not yet been scheduled for oral argument.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the Obamacare statute, was enacted in 2010.

According to the government’s petition, the law created the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The task force makes recommendations about preventive medical services, such as medications and screenings.

The law requires health insurance companies and group health plans to cover preventive services approved by the task force without payment from patients.

Braidwood Management, based in Texas, sued over mandates the panel approved to which the company expressed religious objections. The mandates cover HIV prevention medicine, sexually transmitted disease screenings, and various treatments.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in June 2024 that the mandates were invalid because the structure of the task force that recommended them runs afoul of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

The Appointments Clause provides that the president may appoint officers to assist him in carrying out his responsibilities. Principal officers must be appointed by the president and be confirmed by the Senate, while inferior officers may be appointed by the president alone, the head of an executive department, or a court.

The mandates could not be upheld because the task force members were not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the circuit court found.

The task force wields “unreviewable power” which makes “its members principal officers of the United States who have not been validly appointed under Article II of the United States Constitution.”

The federal district court, whose ruling the circuit court largely upheld, was correct to block HHS from enforcing the mandates, the circuit court stated.

The federal government urged the Supreme Court to accept the case, saying in its petition that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling “jeopardizes healthcare protections that have been in place for 14 years and that millions of Americans currently enjoy.”

Braidwood also urged the Supreme Court to take up the case.

It is the court’s usual practice to grant a petition when a federal act is ruled unconstitutional by a lower court, the company said.

“There is also no reason to depart from the Court’s usual practice here.”

The statute “is of immense importance, and it is a key component of one of the most significant and controversial pieces of legislation that Congress has ever enacted. The Court should weigh in rather than leaving the constitutionality of [the law] and the appointments of the Task Force members to be resolved entirely by the court of appeals.”

President-elect Donald Trump, who backed efforts to repeal Obamacare during his first term, returns to the White House on Jan. 20.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to Braidwood Management’s attorney, Jonathan Mitchell of Mitchell Law in Austin, Texas, and to the U.S. Department of Justice, which represents HHS.

No replies were received by publication time.