Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
606 U.S. _____ (2025)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
The US Preventive Services Task Force (the task force) was a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) advisory body of medical experts who issued recommendations regarding preventive healthcare services. The task force’s governing statute, as amended by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), provided that the task force’s members and recommendations were independent and not subject to political pressure to the extent practicable. Until 2022, task-force members were appointed by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), an agency within HHS. However, in June 2023, the HHS secretary began appointing members. The HHS secretary could also remove task-force members at will. The ACA tied insurance coverage for preventive services to the task force’s recommendations. Specifically, the ACA required insurers to cover without cost sharing (i.e., without copayments or deductibles) services given an “A” or “B” letter-grade recommendation by the task force. The ACA provided for a minimum-one-year waiting period between the task force’s “A” or “B” recommendation for a service and when insurers had to begin covering that service. During the waiting period, the HHS secretary could review and block the task force’s recommendation. Braidwood Management, Inc., and other individuals and small businesses that disagreed with the ACA’s preventive-services-coverage requirements (collectively, Braidwood) (plaintiffs) sued the HHS secretary (defendant) in federal court, arguing that the task force’s structure violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Braidwood asserted that task-force members were principal officers who had to be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. The district court found that the task-force members had been unconstitutionally appointed and issued an injunction preventing the government from enforcing any post-ACA insurance-coverage requirements based on the task force’s recommendations. The appellate court affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kavanaugh, J.)
Dissent (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

