Braidwood v. Becerra
| Braidwood v. Becerra | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |
| Full case name | Braidwood Management, Incorporated, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. |
| Decided | June 21 2024 |
| Citation | No. 23-10326 |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CV-283 |
| Holding | |
| Affirmed | |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Willett, Wilson, and Ramirez |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Don Willett |
| Laws applied | |
| Appointments Clause | |
Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra, No. 23-10326 (5th Cir., June 21, 2024) is a legal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, finding certain aspects of the preventive services mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to be unconstitutional. The plaintiffs, including Braidwood Management, argued that the ACA's mandate requiring health plans to cover preventive services without cost-sharing violates their constitutional and religious rights.[1] The plaintiffs specifically objected to coverage of Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention (PrEP), an HIV prevention drug, citing religious objections to facilitating behavior they oppose, such as homosexual conduct and drug use.[2]
The plaintiffs made two major arguments. The first was that the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which recommends preventive services, was not properly appointed under the Appointments Clause, because this body makes binding recommendations without Senate-confirmed oversight.[1] The second was that covering PrEP violates their religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as they object to subsidizing what they view as morally objectionable behaviors.[2]
In 2022, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on both arguments, finding that the ACA's delegation of authority to the USPSTF violated the Appointments Clause, and that the mandate to cover PrEP violated the plaintiffs' rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).[1] On March 30, 2023, Judge O'Connor issued a final ruling striking down the requirement for insurers to cover services recommended by the USPSTF after March 23, 2010, including PrEP, declaring these mandates unconstitutional.[2]
On June 21, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming that the role of the USPSTF in determining mandatory preventive services under the ACA is unconstitutional.[3] However, the court did not issue a nationwide injunction, limiting the immediate effects of the ruling to the plaintiffs.[4] The court declined to rule on the plaintiff's assertion that the Appointments Clause issue also invalidates decisions of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which makes vaccination recommendations, similarly binding insurance companies to cover those costs. The case is expected to continue, with legal experts anticipating an appeal to the Supreme Court.[3]
If the Supreme Court ultimately invalidates the USPSTF's authority, it could impact preventive services covered under the ACA, including cancer screenings, immunizations, and PrEP.[3][4]
References
[edit]- ^ a b c Laurie Sobel, Usha Ranji, Kaye Pestaina, Lindsey Dawson, and Juliette Cubanski, Explaining Litigation Challenging the ACA's Preventive Services Requirements: Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra, Kaiser Family Foundation (May 15, 2023).
- ^ a b c National Women's Law Center, Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra: The Latest Affordable Care Act Attack Threatens Access to Preventive Health Care Services for Over 150 Million People (July 11, 2024).
- ^ a b c Richard Hughes IV, "Braidwood v. Becerra: The Threat to Preventive Services Just Got Worse", Health Affairs (June 28, 2024).
- ^ a b Ryan, Benjamin (June 21, 2024). "Obamacare's Preventive Services at Risk After Appeals Court Ruling on PrEP Coverage". NBC News.
External links
[edit]- Text of the Opinion from the Fifth Circuit website