Braidwood v. Becerra Threatens Access to Preventive Care Services

In the appeal, the federal government is seeking to reverse the lower court’s ruling on the Appointments Clause issue—that is, the ruling that the ACA’s preventive care mandate is unenforceable as to services recommended by the USPSTF since 2010. [...] The federal government did not appeal the RFRA ruling, likely due to a combination of factors, including a desire to avoid a federal appellate decision that could further expand RFRA and recognition that the remedy for the RFRA ruling is subsumed under the remedy for the Appointments Clause ruling. [...] The oral arguments focused primarily on whether the members of USPSTF are constitutionally appointed to their positions, such that their recommendations can be enforced if ratified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and on the proper scope of the remedy for the plaintiffs if all or part of ACA Section 2713 is unconstitutional. [...] The Court’s conservative leaning and the narrow scope of the issues it focused on during the arguments do not bode well for the enforceability of USPSTF’s recommendations, but only time will tell how the Fifth Circuit will rule. [...] Braidwood’s Potential Impact and What Could Happen Next Given the threat that this case poses to an important and Spotlight on Cancer popular provision of the ACA, and both sides’ commitment to Cancer screenings recommended by the these issues, this case will likely be appealed from the Fifth USPSTF and HRSA help save lives by Circuit to the Supreme Court.