Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: April 21, 2025
Decided: June 27, 2025
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Brett Kavanaugh • Chief Justice John Roberts • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch
This article is about the court case previously known as Becerra v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. It became Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. following Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s appointment as secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. is a case that raises questions about the constitutional limits on agency personnel and appointments, with broader implications for the structure of federal regulatory bodies. It forms part of a larger judicial trend scrutinizing how administrative agencies exercise power under major statutes.

The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 27, 2025.[1] The case was argued on April 21, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term.

In a 6–3 opinion, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court held that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are inferior officers under the Appointments Clause and can therefore be lawfully appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh explained that the Secretary’s ability to remove Task Force members at will—and to block or revise their recommendations—demonstrates sufficient supervision to satisfy constitutional requirements. The Court rejected the argument that statutory language describing the Task Force as “independent” limited that authority.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned whether the structure of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointment clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the structure of the Task Force violates the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the Task Force from the HHS Secretary’s supervision."[2]
  • The outcome: In an 6-3 opinion, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Why it matters: The ruling upholds the legality of a key administrative structure under the Affordable Care Act and clarifies when federal officers may be appointed without Senate confirmation. It preserves the executive branch’s flexibility to staff technical and advisory bodies, while signaling the Court’s continuing interest in reinforcing constitutional boundaries around agency design and supervision.[1]

    Background

    Administrative State
    Administrative State Icon Gold.png
    Five Pillars of the Administrative State
    • Judicial deference
    • Nondelegation
    • Executive control
    • Procedural rights
    • Agency dynamics
    Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez

    “

    In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which requires private insurers to cover certain preventive-care services without cost sharing. Rather than defining these services directly, the ACA empowers three agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services to determine required services: the United States Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The Task Force consists of sixteen volunteer experts serving four-year terms, ACIP has fifteen members selected by the HHS Secretary, and HRSA operates through offices and bureaus reporting to the HHS Secretary.

    Over the years, these agencies issued various preventive care recommendations, including ACIP’s 2007 recommendation for HPV vaccines, HRSA’s 2011 guidelines for contraceptive coverage, and the Task Force’s 2019 recommendation for HIV prevention drugs (PrEP). Four individuals and two Christian-based businesses in Texas challenged these requirements, arguing that mandatory coverage of these services violated their religious beliefs by making them “complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”

    The plaintiffs filed suit in 2020 against the federal government and various department secretaries, primarily arguing that the structure of these agencies violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The district court ruled in their favor regarding the Task Force but rejected their challenges to ACIP and HRSA, and both parties appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Task Force’s structure violated the Appointments Clause and upheld the injunction against enforcing its recommendations, but reversed the district court’s universal remedies and remanded for further consideration of whether HHS properly ratified ACIP and HRSA’s recommendations.[4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the structure of the Task Force violates the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the Task Force from the HHS Secretary’s supervision.[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    In a 6–3 opinion, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are inferior officers who may be lawfully appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, rejecting claims that their appointments violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “

    Therefore, the Task Force members’ appointments are fully consistent with the Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution. The structure of the Task Force and the manner of appointing its officers preserve the chain of political accountability that was central to the Framers’ design of the Appointments Clause: The Task Force members were appointed by and are supervised and directed by the Secretary of HHS. And the Secretary of HHS, in turn, answers to the President of the United States. [4]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    But, rather than accept that the default mode of appointment applies, the Government invented a new theory on appeal, arguing that the combination of two ambiguously worded statutes enacted decades apart establishes that the Secretary of HHS can appoint the Task Force’s members. [4]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Supreme Court of the United States, "Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.", June 28, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-316 BECERRA V. BRAIDWOOD MANAGEMENT, INC. QP", January 10, 2025
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-316," accessed January 23, 2025
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 21, 2025
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 21, 2025
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Kennedy_v._Braidwood_Management,_Inc.&oldid=10432577"