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.
The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a new deadline on Friday in a case over the future of no-cost preventive care under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Why It Matters The order comes just days after the justices heard oral arguments in the case, Kennedy v. Braidwood. The case was brought by conservative Christian employers in Texas and challenges the legal authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, arguing that its members are unconstitutionally appointed because they are not confirmed by the Senate.
The task force's recommendations help determine which preventative medical services insurers must cover at no cost, including cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering statins, and HIV prevention drugs like PrEP. The case would have significant implications on the prices of preventative medications and services for up to 150 million Americans. What To Know The order states that these new briefs should be no more than 15 pages and must be filed by 2 p.m. on May 5.
"The parties are directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing the following question: Whether Congress has 'by Law' vested the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services with the authority to appoint members of the United States Preventive Services Task Force. U. S. Const. art.
II,§2, cl. 2," the order reads. President Donald Trump (L) greets Supreme Court justices at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025.
President Donald Trump (L) greets Supreme Court justices at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025. AFP/Getty Images Earlier this week, a majority of the Supreme Court justices appeared poised to side with the Trump administration, which defended the task force's independence. The case left the Trump administration defending a piece of the Affordable Care Act, which the president has otherwise been critical of and tried to repeal during his first term.
The administration has argued that board members can be removed by the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and therefore do not need Senate approval. Conservative lawyer Jonathan Miller, who is representing the plaintiffs, argued the board members could not be truly independent while being subject to supervision by the HHS secretary. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as the court's liberal justices, seemed skeptical of arguments against the constitutionality of the task force, according to the Associated Press.
What People Are Saying Justice Amy Coney Barrett said during the hearing that conservative lawyer Jonathan Miller, representing the plaintiffs, was using a "maximalist" interpretation of the word "independent." Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said during the hearing: "If somebody is removable at will, that person is not in any ordinary sense of the term independent." What Happens Next The justices are expected to hand down a ruling on the case later this year, once the new deadline for the additional brief passes.
Update 4/25/25, 5:57 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.
